• FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won’t be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.

      • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        GDPR wasn’t designed to prevent this. It’s a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.

        Everything doesn’t have to be free on the Internet

        Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren’t clear enough as to the consumer’s rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.

        When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:

          When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether […] the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.

          to me this reads like: “consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service” and that they imagined consent as being, “yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I’d rather have personalised ads than generic ones,” which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it’s only expressed as “account shall be taken” when determining whether consent was “freely given” and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be “freely given,” which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.

    • Lena@gregtech.eu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      Was it The Sun (the shitty tabloid)? I’ve seen people get that on it.

        • Lena@gregtech.eu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The UK is slowly rapidly turning into a shithole for various reasons

      • Björn@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s on many German sites. One of them the tech news site heise.de that regular reports on court rulings deeming the practice illegal.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Presumably because no one is actually prepared to pay to read the sun. It’s not like it contains any actual news anyway.

      • arudesalad@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        It feels like every uk news site does it. The guardian and the independent are the ones I have trouble with the most. Reader mode “fixes” it though.

    • evilcultist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I keep seeing this a lot lately. I also saw one that had the style from the image (accept all or refuse maybe), but if you hit refuse, a second one popped up that said:

      [pay to read]

      Or

      [read for free]

      I opened it in private mode and read for free just let me into the article. I’m guessing it accepts all.