Re: Paying to avoid cookeies?

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:41:32 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>

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.

>
>
Agree, although a cookie manager that auto-deletes and has a way
white-list certain sites is better. Some sites I frequent too often
that having to re-enter commonly used information is too much a pain
;-)

Cookie auto-delete on Firefox does that, you can white list, manually
delete

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.

>
I absolutely won't read a website that won't display correctly unless
I have to turn off my adblocker.

Ditto.

It's not just that I despise advertising (or rather, marketing),
although that's certainly an issue. I'm equally concerned about the
tracking. But advertising has also too often been a vector for malware
that it's simply not SAFE to surf the web without an adblocker.

Indeed, too many bad actors out there, which is why I have a couple of
browsers, one of which spends 99.9% of it's time with cookies and
javascript turned off.
When I hit a site/link that won't display, I just copy the link and
paste it into the other browser.

I'm also enough of an old-school idealist who remembers when
advertising was persona non grata on the Internet, and while I
/intellectually/ understand the argument that 'content creators gotta
get paid', adverts still seem a violation of everything the Internet
was supposed to be about, and I reject it at an almost instinctual
level.
>
Fortunately, ad-blocking tools like UBlock Origin make the web usable
again, to the point I almost never see adverts anymore. For the few
content creators I really like, I'll donate to the patreon. But I've
no qualms about freeloading off big corporate websites. Fuck 'em.
Despite my best efforts, I'm sure they're still harvesting and selling
my data anyway, so I've little doubt they're still coming out ahead if
I visit one of their websites.

On Palemoon I use both UBlock Origins and Adblock latitude (that's the
one that lets you block elements of the webpage itself,)  this is the
browser that has cookie and javascript disabled almost all the time.

Firefox also has UBlock Origins, but there is no updated version of ABL
for it, which sucks, and why I mostly still use Palemoon unless I
absolutely need to switch.

And if I can't visit your site with an adblocker, well, there are
billions of other websites I can frequent instead.

Exactly, there is no really unique content on the net, at least none
that I want to see.

The worst sites that I've found require you to have javascript on so
they can scan your system "for your security."

Since javascript is the vector so much malware uses, that's so
incredibly stupid.

Xocyll