Re: Paying to avoid cookeies?

JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Well at least it's computer related, so I read something that the online
version of The Daily Express newspaper have introduced a model that
allows you either to read it for free but then you must accept being
tracked with cookies or pay a subscription of £2 per-month to avoid
them. There have been some comments about whether that's allowed under
GDPR (the UK is still signed up although I'm surprised our last
government didn't scrap it as party of EU meddling*) and why on earth
would any pay to read that awful rag**?

Just use a cookie manager that auto-deletes.

I have for years had my browsers set to delete cookies and history upon
closing, and in recent years used cookie monster or other cookie deleter
to auto delete cookies moments after they are set.

Incidentally many online newspapers are perfectly readable without
javascript, and javascript is how they do all their controls to limit
content access to subscribers, etc.
As well as those unwelcome "xxxx no longer supports internet explorer"
type notices, which is doubly annoying since I have never used IE. turn
off javascript and that dumbshittery goes away entirely.

Putting those aside my first thought was that's ridiculous but my second
thought was why is it if you're getting a service for free then is it
really that unreasonable to make you pay for it indirectly in the same
way you can pay not to see ad's. So yeh why not although maybe it's a
sign of things to come?

I use ad blockers to not see ads.
And adblock adjacent programs to remove other inconveniences from online
papers (stupid graphics, interstitial ads that aren't outside ads, but
ads for their own content, sports section that I have no interest in,
etc.

*The did try and introduce the British Standard Mark to replace CE
marking as that was a nasty EU thing so we should have our own. After a
long time they quietly shelved the idea after businesses kept pointing
out that only introduces more red tape, and hence expense, for any
company that sells anything abroad. But, but, but why wouldn't they
accept it as we're British which is a mindset that quite a few of our
last government actually held as they didn't seem to realise that we are
no longer in the 1800's.

Wait the British gov't has realized it's not the 1800s?  So what, the
1900s now?

**Not sure how well that translate outside of the UK but it refers to a
newspaper that you consider crap.

"Rag" is international for crap paper.

Xocyll