I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock…and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn’t even be a thing
They tried
Submitted 1 year ago by MDFL@programming.dev to programmer_humor@programming.dev
https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/1d54103d-1ae1-4c22-9651-eab7cb0ec324.jpeg
Comments
Scoopta@programming.dev 1 year ago
Zikeji@programming.dev 1 year ago
Sites that block adblock - I have network based filtering I’m not going to take the time to specifically figure out what ad providers you’re using (which is probably that same as everyone else) just to unblock your shitty site.
Scoopta@programming.dev 1 year ago
LOL, I also use DNS based filtering soooo I feel your pain.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The fun part is that websites that do this are illegal in the EU
They need to start flexing that 4% revenue / year fines
peter@feddit.uk 1 year ago
I hope one day they just start fining everyone doing it all at once
hairyballs@programming.dev 1 year ago
Why the fuck would they prevent private browsing? I use that a lot to be sure the session is closed correctly.
Scoopta@programming.dev 1 year ago
There’s lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They’ll be like “wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing.” Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Cause they can’t track your browser history that way.
ignotum@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t use adblock, and yet i keep getting “disable adblock to view this” messages, fuck this shit
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Most browsers block some ads by default as well as some other privacy protections nowadays. I’m guessing whatever sites you’re hitting have advertisers so scummy they’re blocked by default
Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 1 year ago
Cool. One less website to visit. Not like there is a shortage.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I love when the trash takes itself out
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I’m pretty sure breaking your website with no cookies is against the rules, actually. It’s either serve the EU with GDPR-compliance or GTFO entirely.
Yeah, you could still just break the law, but as usual there’s a cost to that one way or the other.
peter@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare
akulium@feddit.de 1 year ago
Doesn’t enforcement work by letting competitors sue you if you don’t follow the rules for these things?
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I’ve heard stories about some of the big guys getting hit with sizable GDPR fines. I don’t really know the full extent of what they do but I do imagine there’s someone that makes it their job to prosecute GDPR violations.
Vuraniute@thelemmy.club 1 year ago
this. and honestly I wish more websites followed the “serve under gdpr or don’t have a European marker”. A random blog once wasn’t available in the EU because of GDPR. And you know what? It’s better than them violating GDPR and the EU doing nothing.
jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 year ago
It’s more about the big boys. If they act in a way that breaks the GDPR, now the EU has a stick to hit them with.
SloganLessons@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yeah being unable to open… checks notes local news websites from the US has been a real deal breaker
kubica@kbin.social 1 year ago
Sometimes its relieving when you go to do something and you find out that you have already finished, lol.
MDFL@programming.dev 1 year ago
I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. I have actually never run into it on US local news sites, so I don’t know what you’re on about.
SloganLessons@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yeah it’s a tragedy
amio@kbin.social 1 year ago
Frankly I wish I could fit more US politics into my life, so it's been hard, I tells ya.
explodicle@local106.com 1 year ago
Then you’ve picked the right place my friend!
christophski@feddit.uk 1 year ago
In my experience it seems to be medical websites and recipe websites
SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Your meme is funny, but people genuinely use these arguments to be against sensible EU laws, hence the response I imagine.
genoxidedev1@kbin.social 1 year ago
That's gotta be quite some website you visited, if it didn't load at all without cookies. As someone from Germany, who mostly rejects every sites cookies, except for the essential ones most of the time, but sometimes outright rejects all cookies, I've never encountered a website that refused to load upon doing that.
Not defending any webpages that do do that, just contributing my personal experience.
Also: this for chrome or this for fiefrerfx
Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Also from Germany. Some american news and media sites do that.
ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 1 year ago
some other just block access from the eu completely. (not a news site, but applebee’s does this)
PopularUsername@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I’ve seen Italian sites that will put up a pay wall if you refuse the cookies.
SanityFM@kbin.social 1 year ago
Consent-o-matic is magnificent.
SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
One extension to automatically accept, one extension to automatically delete everything after the tab is closed.
MDFL@programming.dev 1 year ago
It’s rare to see (probably since someone pointed out it doesn’t conform to GDPR standards), but I ran into a batch of them in short order recently, so it’s been on my mind.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I exit in the EU a lot. Same, they mostly work fine with no cookies. It’s much more common to see one that just doesn’t let EU residents in.
drkt@feddit.dk 1 year ago
Oh boo I can’t visit American propaganda websites what a loss to my European life style
MDFL@programming.dev 1 year ago
I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. Your comment is propaganda.
Kichae@kbin.social 1 year ago
propaganda
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
hdnsmbt@feddit.de 1 year ago
That’s fine. People who don’t care about cookies will accept them anyway and those who do care about cookies will know not to visit that site anymore.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC
RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Especially compared to some scummy corps.
MDFL@programming.dev 1 year ago
They’re the ones who made the law. Who else should have been in the meme?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
People complaining about the cookie law don’t understand the issue.
The law doesn’t state that websites have to show a cookie banner. It states that if a website wants to track you with cookies, they have to ask permission.
You can get websites (like lemmy and wikipedia) that don’t ask for cookies, because none of them try to track you.
So if a websites demands cookies or they don’t allow access, it is a clear sign that the website only cares about your visit if they can invade your privacy for profit.
Meaning it will just be a dumb clickbait website with no decent content anyway, that you should just skip.
stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The businesses who are actually doing this shit and not the people actually trying to solve issues in the world lmfao.
glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
So far I’ve only seen small US newspaper who did this. Is anyone angry about this?
Oddbin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s a medical website that appears in top searches (forget the name) that does it too but yeah, mostly seems to be news websites but not the big ones. In most cases Unlock Origin or the like can hide the panel they throw up to choose if you really need the info or archive or 12ft ladder can get you the info.
Pigeon@programming.dev 1 year ago
I think you’re referring to healthline: anon.healthline.com
MDFL@programming.dev 1 year ago
I just happened to run into a few recently. Just venting some frustration.
DeriHunter@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Serious question: I know that there are tracking cookies and the user should be able to decline those,but most sites have an auth cookie that stores you’re credentials. The devs can store it in a different place like local storage but thats really unsecured.what can the devs do in this situation when the user decline all cookies?
gamey@feddit.rocks 1 year ago
I generally agree with the statment under that image and it’s certainly a funny meme but also Illegal, sadly the enforcment is a joke but that’s not really the laws fault!
nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Nearly all of these are illegal, but sadly there is little enforcement when it comes to this. (Tracking must be opt-in, not opt-out. Ignoring a banner must be interpreted as declining. Opting out must be a simple option, not navigating a complex and misleading menus. The users choice applies to any form of tracking, not just cookies…)
sederx@programming.dev 1 year ago
That’s literally the point though…
Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The second that popup about cookies shows up I immediately backout and not use the site.
wisplike_sustainer@suppo.fi 1 year ago
Like I care. I’ve got a plugin that automatically accepts all cookies, and another one that deletes cookies when I leave the page.
Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Be me, american, using a VPN Visit some fucking webber site to read an article Cookie agreement pops up Has a decline option pog.png Hit “reject all” option New popup appears Says “We’ve detected that you’re in the EU. Due to EU regulations, we cannot display this webpage with the ‘reject cookies’ setting selected. Please accept all cookies to continue” Dafuq
RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Road to hell, good intentions and all that. Government fundamentally misunderstanding the role of cookies and the fact that browsers can handle user privacy with trivial effort by default rather than having every single website annoy the fuck out of you with a million goddamn notifications before actually showing you what you want to see.
smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
- This was not about cookies, but processing of personal data and new definitions of such data. Cookies was just an example.
- By those laws, forcing user to consent with denying access to the service is declared illegal.
sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
dumbest shit ever
MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Shrews businessmen: 1 tyrannical big government: 0
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I don’t give a shit about cookies my browser just cleans after me and next time i open it everything is like new.
Pigeon@programming.dev 1 year ago
Not allowing users to access a service at all unless they accept cookies is often against GDPR. See: Can we use ‘cookie walls’?.
To quote:
purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 1 year ago
IIRC the EU also ruled that burying the rejection options under additional links counts as a violation. Hence why Google now has a Reject button next to the accept button. Most sites still do that.
crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Do you know if there is a EU-wide place to report such behavior?
The biggest privately owned TV channel in my country not only does that, but actually just redirects you to a pdf file if you want to “manage cookies”. And it’s not like I can submit a complaint on a national level, as the ruling party’s website uses google analytics without a cookie notice at all.
Pigeon@programming.dev 1 year ago
Yes this would make sense.
Quote from “What methods can we use to obtain consent?”:
For a website, hiding rejection behind a link should class as “unnecessarily disruptive”. If you can provide consent with the press of a single button then rejecting should also be the press of a single button.
mojo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Most sites definitely don’t do this
newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
They’re still widely used for some (illegal) reason
Carighan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because they rest safe in the knowledge that you rarely if ever get taken to court for it. There are millions of web pages, it needs people to take action to do something about it, and just clicking “Yes all of them” to access the content you were just trying to get to is a far better solution in most situations than hiring a lawyer and investing a few years of legal proceedings, nevermind the money.
Sysosmaster@infosec.pub 1 year ago
even worse offenders are the ones with tick boxes for “Legitimate Interest”, since legitimate interest is another grounds for processing (just ads freely given consent is one), the fact you got a “tick” box for it makes it NOT legitimate interest within the confines of the GDPR.
it also doesn’t matter what technology you use whether its cookies / urls / images / local storage / spy satellites. its solely about how you use the data…
_number8_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
why are the EU the only people that bother to actually govern in a modern and helpful way
Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
But what are they going to do about it?
“Your site can no longer operate in the EU”
“… ok”
Knusper@feddit.de 1 year ago
The EU is an important market for many websites, so yeah, that is usually what happens.
ecamitor@beehaw.org 1 year ago
They found a way around: accept all cookies or pay 2€/months. And it was decied legal by GDPR authorities
koper@feddit.nl 1 year ago
Some national authorities allow it, most don’t. The final word will be from the CJEU or the EDPB.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Those pages can just fuck off. There are many more pages.
Of course that’s just my opinion.
GreenMario@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Then half the web violates it or there is One Pixel button that closes the damn popup.