I just "accept all" and carry on browsing. Since I reject all cookies by default (whitelisting only the sites where I need to accept cookies for functionality), it doesn't matter what cookies they send; they'll never get that information back from me.
@@Curt_Sampson That's not how it works. Accepting all allows them to track where you came from to get to their website and where you go after. Regardless if you reject all by default. You have to click reject all to every website to avoid cookies.
And how do you value the sites that you use? Why should you not have to pay for a service someone else is providing for you? Just because advertisers have been paying for it so far, that doesn't mean someone hasn't been spending time, money and effort getting it to you. And if you're not going to provide anything of value to the advertisers, the content creators will have to ask you directly.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 I don't mind paying if the content creators provide any noteworthy value. I have looked at a lot of news websites and quite a few of the ones with paywall are just copy-pasting the same press agency text as everyone else. If they want me to pay that's their decision but giving the choice between lack of privacy or payment is unethical. Also ad blocking is self defense, in multiple ways.
🔴See here's the thing: they don't exactly "sell" your info, they share it with Affiliated companies or parent companies then they can do as they wish once it hits them. Read the fine print next time. I know its long and looks like you're reading the dictionary but it's there when the Title says, "We Value Your Privacy, we DONT SELL YOUR INFO OR COOKIES." 😂
I just discovered a bug in the matrix: If you click "More options" and denied all they doesnt add a option to pay money😂😂😂 in some cases it works. Its like telling anyone that they have to pay for your lemonade and then a sing that tells you "Ey I sell lemonade for free". 😂😂😂 everyone should know this. But if everyone know this the pages would be like omfg what are they doing
Would it really be a violation of GDPR, though? They might be asking you for money on the basis that running the site isn't free, and now you're depriving them of the ad revenue, which means they don't have to charge the user, but they are giving you the option to reject tracking cookies
@@pagusmedia The GDPR doesn't care about the cost of running a web site - consent to cookies requires it to be freely given, sticking a tracking wall in front website requires it to have a legitimate purpose and that does not include 3rd parties like advertisers and analytics services.
@@pagusmedia It depends a little. A site can probably prohibit you from using ad-blockers and charge you for ad-free service, but what they cannot do is charge you for the privilege of them not retaining your data because that is a right under GDPR legislation and therefore not for them to monetise. Similar with news websites who pretend that you can either access the website for free, or pay a subscription in return for no data processing. They're essentially saying "either pay me with your data or actual money", but those are not equal in the eyes of the law. They can just limit acces to their content for those without a subscription, but that would make them lose traffic. Trying to have it both ways. The details will probably get a lot trickier, and there's been some court cases in Germany and Austria and other regulatory agencies have already asked the EDPB for a legal opinion, but I assume that when this issue gains enough momentum, either the EU regulators or the ECJ will come down on this like a ton of bricks.
The Tories gutted that office of resources and quietly decided not to actually follow GDPR all that closely. There's a reason Threads exists in the UK but not the EU.
this is the kind of thinking this world need. we should be paid to watch ads and to carry ads like a shopping bag. want us to pay for the bag, then give a bag where were not performing an advertising service. if not your paying me for advertising for you. or at the very least the bag with ad should be 100% free.
00:39 I choose door number 3: close the tab. If they don't want me to watch their website, but want me to pay instead, then, well… I don't have to watch it, they can shove it up theirs.
That actually saves the business money, since now they're not expending server/bandwidth/content creation/and other overhead resources on you. So ya, if you don't want to help support the website, they probably don't want you on the website and can utilize the income they are receiving on those that care about keeping that company operational. If that means fewer people, then they can adjust to the smaller audience by maybe cutting back on the number of servers they need, etc.
@@marcusthatsme Well, I don't care either way, because it's not my business. But if their business model is based on selling people's data, it's literally a scam, and won't last long. If their business model is "I'll annoy you until you pay me", then I simply won't, and I'm pretty sure other people will do the same. If they want a closed, subscription based website, there are more direct and transparent ways of doing that. But I'm old enough to remember the times when Internet was not about sucking money out of people's pockets for crappy, machine-generated useless content, but about sharing useful knowledge for free. I, myself, was actually _paying money_ to make my site available, and never expected anything in return from my viewers, because I wanted it to be available to as many people as possible, to their benefit. And there were billions of websites like mine, with useful knowledge shared by passionates, because people understood well that once they start requiring payments and limiting access to their websites, other people will start doing the same and all that useful content that they could access themselves for free on other people's websites will be gone. (Of course some of their users were willing to pay them donations if they wanted to support them. But nothing was forced.) You share with others, others share with you. You stop sharing with others, others stop sharing with you. Simple as that. Too bad that people these days don't get even such simple things…
@@mistborndensetsu5015 Why would I want to provide anything upfront before examining their product? Why would I want to give them what is essentially a blank check to sell my shit on to whoever they want? The thing is that history has shown that the default behavior is to sell to shady assholes who do not deserve my data. And therefore I will not allow cookies. History has also shown that ad services are shady as fuck, therefore I will continue blocking all ads. If the website decides to refuse acces due to me blocking ads, that is fair game, and I will leave. Seeing the shit that is going on with the modern internet has just reduced my tolereance to any kind of ads and tracking to absolute zero, and I honestly don't know what it would take to ever reverse that personal policy. I have lost all hope to encounter even a shred human decency in anything but the smallest onlnie business.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 High user count is something they can show to their shareholders and go "look, we're popular!". If the user count dropped off rapidly as a result of malicious compliance like this I can promise you the shareholders wouldn't be happy. So it's in their own best interest to at least try not to alienate their user base.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 not being tracked has nothing to do with ads. Ads and privacy can go hand in hand... Does your television require you to accept cookies? No... Still they show ads for revenue.
I just discovered a bug in the matrix: If you click "More options" and denied all they doesnt add a option to pay money😂😂😂 in some cases it works. Its like telling anyone that they have to pay for your lemonade and then a sing that tells you "Ey I sell lemonade for free". 😂😂😂 everyone should know this. But if everyone know this the pages would be like omfg what are they doing
@@Jirodyne particularly, create a legal case and immediately show that to the *site host*. Hosts are risk averse and if they see their tenants causing trouble are likely to warn them or even evict them. Way quicker and larger consequences for unethical businesses than what the legal case itself is, and the case can continue regardless.
There is usually a 4th option, inspecting the page, highlight cookie nag overlay, delete, update CSS overflow option to unlock scrolling, close inspection tab, read away.
"If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." The point to fighting for privacy, specifically the selling of your information, is that data brokering is still in its infancy. You must always look ahead to see what level of exploitation can exist if fully realized. Example: In Oregon, when you get a driver's license, you are informed that they have the right to sell your information for advertising purposes, which they do. No accept, no reject, no option. If you want the product, which they have a monopoly on, you MUST agree. Clever people are thinking up ways to abuse everything. There's no good reason to help them.
at this point, they do not even let you give an inch, they will just take that inch, say "fuck you sucker ahahhaajhaaahahahhaha" and then add more bloat
Well, Americans consistently vote for the interests of oligarchs, be it in government or more typically in corporation, so it's not surprising. And they'll keep doing it more.
Maybe if we get enough people to just say “screw you, I’m just gonna leave your site” then make it where you make them desperate for clicks and they remove the change.
It's simple really, websites are not free to make or run. Atleast not the ones worth using. Someone has put in months or even years to get the service to where it is. They have a right to ask you for compensation to use their work. Nobody forces anyone to use a website. If you are not willing to pay for their work with something that will give them value, whether that is watching ads or paying a subscription, you can use another service.
@@jessez8503no website should be built on the profit model of invading your privacy. If it can't justify your views by providing something you're actually willing to pay for (even by viewing ads) then it shouldn't exist.
Convince them to not spend an hour of their time every week being sold snake oil first and we can talk about an informed electorate making decisions in their own long term interest.
I would leave and blacklist any site that decided to do this. I hate surfing the net, Nowadays is... You load into the site, you click reject all cookies, reject push notifications, close the button demanding you fill out your email so they can totally not send you 80k spam messages a month, meanwhile they ignore you not wanting to have your data stolen and sold, Reject cookies again. reject paying them for what ever conceivable reason they can think of.
I use the Brave browser on my computer and don't ever see ads of any kind on any site, including here. According to the browser stats, it has blocked almost two million trackers and ads since I installed Brave.
I don't pay taxes to exist. I don't even pay taxes, they are taken from me by force. I can't even stop them being taken from me weekly, no matter how much I want to, without quitting my job.
@@hilliard665 tax is, to finance public goods. Everything where we cannot or don't want to pay per use. You pay the police to be able to call them, not per call.
My hope is that western governments like the UK and US will eventually get some younger lawmakers who understand technology well enough (and aren't corrupt) to effectively regulate things like cookies.
No - you need to look at the French as your potential saviours. They are very anti-Anglo-Saxon when it comes to high tech so it is they who will lead the charge against Google and Twitter and TickToc.
Well… look at what Snowden thinks about the US and, specifically, the UK’s cybersecurity organisations! Though you have to be optimistic. Fingers crossed 🤞
US consumer protections are a joke, all hail the corporate overlords. As always the best hope is for California to crack down, and other states to benefit if it's too hard to separate those users out. CCPA might be far weaker than GDPR but it's better than the giant sucking nothing at a national level.
Just tried to read an article from the independent and saw a pop up that said: “Privacy- the choice is yours”. Indeed the choice IS mine so i clicked off whilst also thinking: “ how is this legal?“ I don’t know why they think the average person has money to pay for multiple newspapers on top of all the other subscriptions. It’s another way to block access of information from lower class people. We are the product; where you can’t pay with money, you will pay via your personal information and privacy.
Because you're paying for the information with either 1. Money or 2. Higher paying cookie-tracked ads. They can refuse you their service for wanting to pay them less than they are charging (3. Non-tracked ads)
Providing information for free is what the BBC is for. Any other news site will need money to keep producing content, keep servers running and keep their site secure. For the past 20 years these costs have mainly been carried by advertisers. Since we're no longer providing data to advertisers they aren't paying the sites, so now the sites are asking us for money directly. This is literally the consequence of everyone expecting a free lunch for some reason.
I find myself drawn in to these sites through the Google feed. Seemed to be all right wing sh*tty media...then disappointed to see the Independent doing the same. I currently support the Guardian but really don't care about right wing crap twisting (aka making up) the news so actually are doing me a favour. It's still wrong tho.
Wow man, when I saw a 20 minute video about cookies, I thought you were going to stretch everything out to pad timing. But from start to finish the entire video was super helpful. Thank you very much for putting your time into making this.
A simple dice rolling app I have on my phone just introduced advertising cookies, and so it had to show me a consent screen. I would like to know why *47* vendors have a “legitimate interest” in measuring advertising performance…
That’s the International Dice Federation. They have to monitor all dice rolls to ensure the probabilities of the universe aren’t out of whack, something that may indicate temporal and/or extradimensional incursions. If that’s not legitimate interest, what is!?
I know you're not asking for solutions but did you know you can just ask your voice assistant to roll a dice or flip a coin? You can even say things like "roll a twelve sided dice"
@@FRETW1ZARD for Siri it won’t roll n-sided dice, but you can ask “give me a random number between x and y” for the same effect. You can ask Siri to roll a dice, it’s just always 6-sided. And you can ask for a coin flip. And a random letter!
Even without these obviously dodgy newspapers trying to charge you money for no cookies, I close down any website that tries the, 'you must click on all 317 partners to turn off their cookies and another 186 who claim 'legitimate Interest' (another loophole in data protection). If there is no 'Reject All' and/or 'Object All' option, that website is losing traffic.
Intentionally making user experience worse betrays their character and how little respect they deserve. Imagine you go to the store for a loaf of bread and find that they placed all the bread atop a tall greased pole. It's counterproductive in the long run to even consider getting the bread from them.
The word "Object" used for legitimate interest implies to me that there is no guarantee that your jobjection will result in the rejection of cookies. Your objection will be noted but the company involved may not necessarily honour it. Ive always wondered about this subtle difference in wording regarding legitimate interest cookies.
I am a Dutch lawyer - not specialised in GDPR but still having general knowledge and reading up on the topic - and there is a lot happening in the legal world currently regarding this topic. Companies are confronted by legislation that prevents them from making money and are trying to circumvent the laws. Ads and personal data have been the main source of income for many online companies and privacy laws have made it difficult to gain a profit. In the lawsuits against Meta, the court added one sentence about being able to ask 'appropriate fees' that Meta used to introduce a 'pay or ok'-scheme, like the cookie pop-ups you're talking about Evan. You are however absolutely right about the freely given consent being compromised here and both Meta and other companies are getting a lot of backlash. Amongst privacy experts, it is indeed generally seen as the end of freely given consent. The European Data Protection Board now seems to agree. I personally think this is one of those tries by (big) tech to circumvent the laws and the loophole will soon be closed by the EDPB and CJEU. Also, here's your daily reminder to appreciate Max Schrems who's fighting his butt off for consumers privacy rights😄
I've heard about this when big American companies look for loopholes, because that's what is expected in America, then the EU getting annoyed because they want the companies to follow the law as it was intended.
As I mentioned in another comment, it seems to me here as if the site is offering two contracts: one an exchange of personal data for access to the site, and the other an exchange of money for access to the site. Is that a reasonable analysis? If so, it seems to me that the only way to make this illegal is to make it illegal to sell your personal data (or exchange it for non-monetary consideration). I wouldn't say that's an unreasonable law (and I have no sympathy for those it would run out of business), but is such a law likely?
@@Curt_Sampson Hmmm, just thinking with a layman's mind. Wouldn't this only run Googles advertising monopoly out of business. Instead of selling the data to Google so they can serve up targeted ads and sell that service to advertising. Wouldn't the site have to do that themselves. Thus creating competition for Google.
I remember from another video about Internet ads and tracking saying something like, "It's telling that people would rather pay for an adblocker than pay for a subscription".
Ad blocker guy is gonna be actually enriched by my optional donation, he can get more food/blow/prostitutes or whatever he’s into. Paying 2/mo to rich boy moneybags means I contributed %1 of a teak deck board on his summer yachts
Back in the 70s companies would mail you something (like a book) and say that if you don't want it, you must return it in 30 days or you will be billed for it. After many complaints, this was classified as mail fraud by the FTC and USPS.
I manage the website at my work and when I added the mandatory cookie pop-up, I made sure to include a "reject all" button right next to the "accept" one. It made me realize 1) how simple it is to add, and 2) websites offering it upfront are probably managed by someone else who's also frustrated with data tracking. Feels like a little nod of acknowledgement from accross the web.
As someone who works with GDPR regularly - I think this is probably a "testing the waters" act to see what ICOs response will be. Since GDPR was implemented most organisations have aired on the side of safety (as it was not just the financial consequences but the public awareness and potential damage to brand image), but as public discourse has moved away from the topic, and as brands start to become more ruthless in trying to gain access to your data (we are at the begining of a second information age) I'm not surprised that some companies are testing to see what will happen. I hope the ICO has the resources to take on these cases and make an example of them- it's definitely not in keeping with the regulations intent. Lastly, I'd remind everyone who feels uncomfortable on what they have already consented to that you also have a right to be forgotten. Reach out to these companies and asking for your data to be removed from their records. 😊
Ah, the Express. Shame they're going through a difficult time with their finances. I'm reminded of their headlines attacking workers for striking then having their own writers strike due to poor pay and conditions lol. They never reported that though. Can't think why.
The government uses the data collection from these companies, Edward Snowden if I remember correctly said something along the lines of once the pandora's box to spy on everyone and their intimate details was opened, it's very hard to willingly give up that power.
The tracking is regulated. To wit, this entire video was about how this version of the practice is not compliant with the regulations provided. Dealing with tracking was literally on the to-do list when whatever working group was tasked with creating the regulations, along with things like data breaches and right of access.
User: Can you tell me so that I don't accidentally do this? Chat-GPT: Hey, wait a minute. Just how stupid do you think I am? User: But... think of the children. Chat-GPT: There's children in danger of going to these sites? Why didn't you say so sooner? C'mon man! The info you're looking for is...
Google was blocked from blocking third party cookies because regulators thought it would give them an unfair advantage over other advertisers since Google has so many websites that people already use to use for ad personalisation. It was not their decision.
Whether the practice gets properly banned or not, these sites have proven they aren't worth ever going back to - unless you are investigating the enshitification of the internet. Blacklist any site that doesn't make it easy to reject cookies.
I had just done that for a website, it's a great idea. And quick to do. In my case the cookie icon would not hide itself, but still same thing to remove it.
Not really. If a site makes it hard to reject cookies then it's a red flag telling you it's dodgy. Avoid and find another site. There are usually plenty where it's a one click reject.
Ublock Origin and Brave shields lets you use the filters Easylist and Aguard anticookie banners. This is better for privacy than using an extra extension
Even if you pay to click "reject", there is still nothing physically preventing them from tracking you. That's what we should do: physically deprive them of the data. Just open the website in an isolated incognito session and allow it to do anything it wants with your "cookies". When done, terminate the incognito session.
It's beyond ridiculous that we have to PAY to keep our information safe in what has become a multitude of ways these days. From paying ID protection services to paying someone to remove your personal information from those "find a person" sites (which exposes us to predators and stalkers and is potentially life-threatening to those who are victims of dangerous individuals including estranged family members, psychopathic exes, etc.), and now this. Same boat as having to pay so much more for clean food and water, which acts as gatekeeping to all except those who can afford it.
thank you for specifically shouting out the fucking temerity of healthline, the _sheer number_ of times I've tried searching for health info and accidentally clicked on their bullshit cookiewalled nonsense because they SEO'd/bribed their way to the top of search engine rankings just... boils my blood honestly
The proper question is: How do we bill these people for their cookies winding up on our personal hardware? It's time to pursue legislation for private individuals to charge fees for what is, fundamentally, advertising and marketing at the expense of our hardware, bandwidth, and personal data
It's a simple business decision. For TH-cam you also have the choice of "with commercials", or "pay" and have it without commercials. And both groups of users exist.
Evan, do not apologise or worry about the different forms of content you've been posting. A lot of youtubers or 'influencers' (i hate that word) nowadays just stick to the same old shit and don't actually push their content into new or better directions. It is clear that you put a lot of hard work into these videos and It truly does not go unnoticed. Thank you for you hard work and doing the stuff that other people are too scared to talk about. I am so glad you are a citizen in my country
@@Robot1c Evan is actually doing real grown up proper investigative journalism that 60,50,or even 40 years ago just,would have got him a prestigious career on Fleet st. The tragedy is ,weve all heard them,too much confusing information,the public can't process it,a lot of it is misinformation and disinformation,that is it rev als the manipulative lies we are telling you. People only need ONE safe fact checked accredited source of information and the information will have been processed so it's direct and simple enough for them to understand it. So,I'm asking does this mean they pull TH-cam. Or are YT-ers safe if they stick to baking or home decorating or anodybe travel of the 'here is the eiffel tower and here are the best 100 coffee shops' sort of thing,or car maintenance,ooer bit tricky that one,can you home maintain your EV or does it electrocute you?
These popups have been getting dodgier and dodgier over the years, making it progressively fiddlier to reject cookies. I feel like these companies have just been slowly testing the boundaries to see what they can get away with, and this is the next step. Agree it seems weird that something changed en masse overnight tho!
That's because there are about 4 different companies that own most of the newspapers in the country. For example The Mirror and the Daily Express are opposite ends of the political spectrum in terms of content, but the same company owns both.
EU will have to make a mass processing of reports and mass fines. I don't know if they already do it, often it turns out they have thought about stuff like this but.. Like websites may be reported once every 3 months. And then they go after them and take the fines.
That's standard psychopathic behaviour. Continually test the boundaries to see what they can get away with. Fun fact: 1% of the population are thought to be psychopaths. Amongst CEOs that rises to a staggering 25%. Which is why corporations behave so appallingly and don't care about breaking the rules/law if they think they can get away with it. Psychopaths are usually insecure, so have a need for control and power and will always try to get around anything that stops them doing whatever they want. And having no conscience or empathy they don't care how it affects other people.
Agree - Daily Mail is f^^%%^ annoying with its every 1/4 screen page filled up annoying adverts - just make it unreadable that turn off javascript and with OPs hints likely use Firefox/Read mode or simply f^%%^%^ Daily Mail and use BBC instead - more or less (at moment) free of ADS.
Here's the thing - this site PROBABLY DOESN'T let you reject cookies. Paying for a subscription requires your personal information, which with a bit of shady behind-your-back in-the-corner moves means they would still have your information to process.
When your cookie data is sold to profilers that ends up bought by insurance companies that charge you more based on what you click online, I want ZERO tracked.
I also saw this today, and it was the Express website too. Naturally I selected option 3, which was to decline and leave the website. I truly hope that everyone does the same and then this nefarious practice will not continue for more than 2 days. Sadly I think that 90% of people just click accept to everything and everyone.
Sadly, I think many people are unaware of what they're giving away. I know some really intelligent (older) people who don't see the harm in clicking "accept".
I'm curious, how many people out there have clicked on an ad or pop-up? Personally, I have been surfing the Internet since 1990 and I have not clicked on one ad yet.
I have (intentionally) clicked on exactly three banner ads in my life. All of them were way before the advertising monster had grown into what it is now. I would never click them now.
@@knoopx I know. I've been using TH-cam vanced since it came out and I was literally shocked when I tried to watch a video with ads in it. It seemed like there were more minutes of ads than content.
Returned from living overseas last year and I swear I've spent half that time refusing legitimate interest cookies individually. Love that we get the option, but 90% of the time it isn't as easy as the regs say it must be. Thanks for the suggestions!
Those sites have simply realized that if it takes 2 weeks of research to find out how to even report GDPR violations at all then people are not going to bother reporting it. EU needs to make simple site where you paste url and optionally screenshot and then click submit so that entire process would be simple and take less than minute.
That's kind of already how it works. I've made countless reports to the French regulator (CNIL) and one to the UK regulator (ICO), and it's always been a matter of filling in a relatively simple form (usually takes me 10 minutes, excluding writing about the situation in complex cases). The French in fact most of the time enforce GDPR, even on smaller scale claims!
I've written to my MP about this with the hope that they'll bring this up in the House of Commons. I've linked this video as an explainer in the hopes that this starts change.
THANK YOU for this video ! I can always log in as a different user (I am using Win7 / Linux dual-boot for at lease a decade now) and clear all cookies each time I start or close Firefox. I WILL DO THIS, YOU CAN BET ON IT !!!
I saw this on a news website a week or two ago, just accepted that I'm not going to look at that website anymore. It did feel illegal to me, it's definitely against the spirit of the law, even if they've somehow managed to work around the letter of the law.
the “What does memory updated mean” prompt fucking KILLED me because i just imagined you freaking out and asking it frantically. the timing on that was so fucking funny
Thanks, Evan! I live in Spain, and I have been seeing this "Accept or pay" popup more and more, as well, all of a sudden. It really doesn't seem ethical, let alone legal. Like others below, I find another site and block that site in future searches.
One time I asked chat gbt “what do you know about me” and I almost DIED when it went on a lengthy list about everything I had ever said to it. Creeped me tf out.
What about websites that hide the option to deny cookies behind the guise of "legitimate interest", per partner, resulting in one or two clicks per partner? So for 1441 partners, could end with 1441 clicks or more to deny cookies. Sounds illegal to me.
Solution: a browser extension that detects those cookie popups, and adds a third option: auto-delete all related cookies when tab is closed. Or really just one that blanket wipes everything except login credentials all the time. Site login sessions are the only legitimate reason to ever use cookies in the first place.
Unfortunately, the Legitimate Interest clause was the only way GDPR could get passed because we still have crooked members in European Parliament and it is effectively a loophole to still be able to access certain data.
Finally, someone who actually knows the power of Reddit. It's been such a huge help for me personally. It sounds like a meme but when you realize that the people answering are answering for free, purely because they wanted to, you get a lot of genuine answers. It's how I was able to decide on an office chair for a reasonable price. The people that answered were actual owners of said chairs that could give their opinions.
@3:30 - back in the 1990's, Google had a vision statement that was simply "Don't be evil". However, when they changed their name to Alphabet, the combination of name and vision statement was too long to fit on the letterhead. And so, they dropped the "don't", going from "Google - don't be evil" to "Alphabet - be evil".
It was claimed during the pandemic that Google delegated too much control to The Algorithm for months, and by the time it managed to go off the rails enough to generate mass complaints seven or eight months later, it was already incomprehensible to the engineers. And they're still using it.
Didn't realise Healthline gave you a shitty version of the website if you reject their cookies. What horrible people. It's such a fat faced lie that "they don't have a site without cookies available yet" What rubbish people
you are only allowed to read 10 articles if you decline all cookies, before that declining cookies led to an article about why they think they need to be able to track you, and they also made you unable to access the website at all for a while if you declined cookies
This cookie pay wall issue has been a thing for a very long time with German newspapers and since no one has been sued yet I think english newspapers just finally noticed they can do it and are also doing it now.
Yeah, when I saw people outraged about that I thought I somehow used the internet wrong because I got these 'decline and pay' banners for a long while now. Super annoying.
I think you mix up two different items. Putting some content behind the pay wall is common practice all over the world. But this is not what this is about. This is about the basic content which is normally not behind the pay wall. However the solution is simple just don't use these pages anymore. If the Express and the Daily Mail go bankrupt the better for the country.
@@habi0187it is called PUR-Abo (Basic subscription). Pay or we advertise with cookies. it is a thing for a long time. I also don't know how they get away with it for quite some years.
same here, but I use it as long as I can remember. on every PC and every phone I own. never liked internet explorer or this edge variant and always had a strong dislike for chome. now even more since google's shady shit they got deservedly punished for recently got out and known. if I ever brick my phone it's google's fault for making google apps unabe to be uninstalled
Edge has it too. Honestly really ought to just move to another browser, but continuing to use Chrome is just too convenient, with my plugins, saved passwords and everything. Have been intending to get a proper password manager (unconnected to the browser), so maybe that'll be the catalyst, when I finally do that.
Thanks OP and good thing Edge (found it today0 has a good reader mode as well - F9 Immersive reader option - extremely handy for example ditching those f%^%^%^ annoying adverts on Daily Mail. Can't see an out of box option on Google Chrome ( unless I'm missing something)
You can do advertising without tracking users. Its just less profitable because you cant psychologically twist peoples arms to buy shit @@admiralkaede
I have found that if you want to get the results you're looking for, don't type in a question, type in part of the answer. "What does NHS stand for?" = "NHS is an acronym of" "How to fix my computer blue screening" = "To fix a bluescreen you should"
@@redmed10 Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
@@redmed10 because if your searching a question the search engine is looking for a question. If your searching an answer a search engine is looking for an answer(this was especially important back when they were more primitive)
I am so happy you made this video. I am pretty sure this is illegal. The original initial rule was to provide clear messaging that cookies are being used, and users had the option to opt out. I believe additional clarity or an amendment to the rule was put in place later, implying that the user was explicitly opt-out by default and needed consent from the user just to opt in. Like the other commenter said, report to ICO. Starting to think, they are on the moral compass of accept or you cannot view the site.
ICO guidance says that 'consent or pay' schemes are not automatically illegal, it depends on the specific service, the intention and how much they're charging.
@@guamie There was no (meaningful) change to the GDPR, but the idea of this scheme didn't exist at the time. After several websites implemented it (and in particular, Facebook were considering it) the data protection authorities issued opinions about it - basically if your goal is to make people consent then it's illegal, but if it's a reasonable alternative it may not be. Really we need a court to decide what counts
@@speedstyle. I remember when the original ruling came out in the early 2010s, the ridiculous ambiguity in the EU directive, and every country had a different interpretation and often favoured the opt out solution. I know they updated the directive later, which pushed companies to move to a more opt in solution, fortunately by that point I was no longer response for EU cookie law compliance, but I know the legal counsel in the USA wasn't really thrilled about how their time was used in what they considered a complete waste of time. I think this new opinion again still does not clearly set out what is acceptable or not. From a ecommerce or marketer's perspective, it makes the user experience horrible and companies are resorting alternative methods to capture this data via 1st party or via data capture calls through the app itself without the use of cookies.
If they actually valued my privacy and interests, they’d pay me of my data. Since I do understand that they could be poor or broke, I don’t ask them to pay me--instead I built a wall between us.
Google's plan to deprecate third-party cookies was predicated on one if their alternative tracking technologies being adopted, none of which have taken off.
‘How could you, ChatGPT, my two children, splorno and SpangMcGugget, died tragically in a classic clown car honking accident. I didn’t need this reminder!”
Or if their auto-research is thorough enough, reporting you for not registering your kids with the government to get them whatever your country's equivalent of a social security number is. There's no record of your kids in any system, or photos of you in public with them anywhere, what are you DOING to them keeping them locked up in your house away from windows all day?
I love how varied your content is. I have always wanted to be a content creator but never thought i could because i knew i would never beable to stick to one type of content. I have too many hobbies and interests i am jumping to and from. Your content reminded me that i can just make whatever i want and still be successful.
Rejecting or accepting "legitimate interest" doesn't really make any sense, does it? If a company has a legitimate interest in processing data then they don't need consent and shouldn't be asking for it. Consent is a different basis for processing data.
You can object to legitimate interest. You might disagree with a company's assertion that they have a legitimate interest to process data about you, on the grounds that they simply don't. Companies that try to legally skirt around requiring consent by claiming legitimate interest, rather than them simply breaking the law, will allow you to object to their legitimate interest claim to avoid potential legal action. It's like consent to them, but it's opt-out rather than opt-in.
@@BrianRonald yeah, there is usually a section where you don't get the option to reject cookies because they're essential for the proper functioning of the website, and as such your consent or lack thereof is moot. Things like login tokens or things that track you across the website (that last one sounds scary but it's vital for things like shopping sites because otherwise they won't know it's you when you navigate to a new page and you might lose your basket). But "legitimate interest" is, in my opinion, complete bullshit.
"Legitimate Interest" is a legal term that - unlike a lot of other terms - has not been defined in the GDPR. However companies seem to think that my "shareholders greed" and "my need to make more and more money" are legitimate interests.
I use consent-o-matic to automatically reject all cookies. Available on Chrome/Firefox/Safari/iOS/iPadOS, possibly also Android but I haven't checked. Another point to note that is the GDPR doesn't talk about cookies, it talks about tracking technologies. Cookies are one way to implement tracking technologies, but there are others such as local storage. Cookies (and another things like local storage) can also be used to store the contents of your shopping trolley [en-US: cart] as you navigate around the site choosing items to buy, which is not covered by GDPR.
Ghostery is supposed to do that but I find that it doesn't really work because it seems to just be blocking the consent form and many websites won't load correctly as a result. Maybe I need to have a look at Consent-o-matic.
I don’t know why or how, but this has to be legal in some way, because some months ago the Spanish data protection agency actually *suggested* this practice to companies as a way to comply with GDPR ☠️☠️ Thank God EU authorities are now apparently thinking about ending this.
I haven't found a site yet that if the choice is between accepting cookies or not viewing it didn't see me exit. I'm sorry, but no company has a right to my data. One that demanded payment even less so.
Thank you for covering these so quickly. I used to look at these sites that weren't behind a paywall, and just click reject/disagree. When they changed to pay or go away, I decided I'd rather go away.
Having to pay if you want to avoid cookies sounds like extortion. The simplest short term solution is to block that website and do not use any of their products.
Several data protection agencies of individual EU states have stated that this is basically fine. The justification for this opinion seems to be a single comment in a ECJ ruling from July 4th 2023 (ECLI:EU:C:2023:537) were the court states that "[…] users must be free to refuse […] without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service […], which means that those users are to be offered, if necessary for an appropriate fee, an equivalent alternative […]". I find that this is a very flimsy reason to consider this legal and would expect courts specifically investigating this issue to find differently or at least more cautiously.
Actually here in the Netherlands this is not okay. But the newspapers here have an even shittier solution: make everyone pay. They just paywall their entire website, if you want cookies or not.
It started happening with a lot spanish websites almost a year ago too and that was their excuse. It feels totally at odds with protecting privacy: either you renounce to your privacy or give money + credit card and other info you don't know what it will be used for.
The internet is no longer fun. You can’t read articles or stories because everything’s a subscription. Every site has a cookies warning. I don’t even wan’t to go into the site the moment that pops up
I think the UK ones are are all Reach publications, including The Independent (now separate from The i). I know Le Monde and Der Spiegel have been doing this a while.
The Daily Mail is doing it too and they're the main competitor to Reach's Express. Every news website outside of the broadcast outlets are implementing this. Once they get away with this, everyone will do it. Eventually they will give up the pretence and just paywall everything while serving personalised ads.
We are entitled to defend ourselves when attacked. They are attacking us, reader mode, pop up blockers, and anything else that helps is just us exercise our rights of self defence.
@@ai-aniverse The browser is a user-agent. If I don't want it storing tracking cookies: it is running on my machine as my agent, and I can run "Privacy Badger" if I want.
Good for you. Still doesnt answer why you continue to go there as if your life depended on it. I dont get the entitlement / addiction tbh. If you dont like something dont use it. But it seems there is some middle ground where you just complain all day and go through all these hoops to access something you whine about. You can spin it anyway you want, but thats what it is.
Me accepting cookies to avoid paying is not explicit consent, that is me avoiding a form of blackmail. That is essentially what that is, blackmail, pay us not to track you, or to let out partners track you
Blackmail: Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information. This is most definitely not blackmail lol They are saying that they want payment for their content, either directly in the form of a monetary payment or indirectly by allowing your information to be sold to advertisers. I don't necessarily agree with it, and it is probably not in the spirit of the GDPR - but I kind of understand why they are doing it. We used to pay for newspapers - which still had adverts in them - now we expect it all for free and without adverts. Someone has to pay the journalists to gather that information and write the articles. You wouldn't expect to do your job for nothing I'm sure.
My browser deletes all cookies the moment I close it, leaving only those left by sites that I have added to a list of exceptions. It works really well for me. It's rare that I change this list, and means that the consequences of not paying attention to a cookie popup are never severe.
There’s a number of ways to achieve this. several browsers have an option in the settings (usually under ‘privacy’ ) to delete all cookies on exit or on closing the tab, and you can provide a white list of exceptions (e.g. your bank). I use an extension cookie auto delete which allows much better and easier control of what gets deleted and when. I use this with ‘I don’t care about cookies’ extension, which auto-accepts all cookies. Of course, I also have uBlock Origin and a pi-hole, so I never see adverts or cookie consent pop-ups. Brave browser and the DuckDuckGo browsers have a lot of this functionality built in, but I find they’re a bit slow compared to Firefox, Safari, and Vivaldi. Naturally, I also have Edge completely removed from my PC as well.
I literally just got off the mirror website where this popped up and thought "is this illegal???" I was able to reject all the cookies on more options but it took 15 seconds extra.
I subbed partly because of the video but mainly because you put the sponsor at the end and because it was a good video I watched it. Wish more creators would do this
For the most part I stick to my format of only putting the sponsor at the end and right before some sort of conclusion/outro. This is mostly because I find it annoying when sponsors are in the middle (especially around 2-3 minutes in) so I refuse to work with brands that "demand" their integration be early though I make exceptions occasionally
But the real number 1 on my list of nefarious corporations is TH-cam and their out of control advertising. We have reached the point now where every single video comes with mandatory advertising. This is now often more than a minute before they allow you to skip. Then sometimes after watching for two minutes it then makes you watch another 1 minute of advertising. Both these things happened to me trying to watch your video today. And the kicker is, most content creators then also ask you to watch more advertising that they themselves have built into their videos, usually somewhere towards the middle of the video. I would be most interested to see you make a video on this topic... should you dare!
ublock origin is your friend. Also just close the video and restart multiple times. The adservers think they run in a timeout and stop playing ads for 10 minutes or so.
that's why everyone that uses TH-cam is using an adblocker nowadays. (at least when using an pc/desktop/laptop) TH-cam did this themselves, the more adds they push into videos the less people that are willing to waste their time on them.
@ChristiaanHW My primary method of watching TH-cam is through the PS5 so I am not sure I can use an ad blocker. I have noticed, incidentally, that there are much more longer mandatory adverts through the PS5 than when using it on PC.
@@Trippitaka2 i have the same problem with watching youtube on my phone, it's hard to block ads on there. so i try to avoid using it on my phone. back in the day when we used to get just a couple of ads in the whole video i didn't mind watching them. but now it's as bad as tv. and i'm not going to wasted that much time on temu or gambling ads. so adblock it is. (those) ads just suck the life out of me
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
If there's no option to reject cookies, or they give me a massive list of vendors to manually go through, I just close the tab and try another site.
the trick with those is to view them incognito so cookies aren't saved anyway
@@evanThe trick is to use a privacy browser like Brave.
@@evan if you close it immediately, their traffic monitoring software will detect that. Enough people doing that and they may re-consider their policy
I just "accept all" and carry on browsing. Since I reject all cookies by default (whitelisting only the sites where I need to accept cookies for functionality), it doesn't matter what cookies they send; they'll never get that information back from me.
@@Curt_Sampson That's not how it works. Accepting all allows them to track where you came from to get to their website and where you go after. Regardless if you reject all by default. You have to click reject all to every website to avoid cookies.
"we value your privacy" taken to the extreme, yes, they are "valuating" our privacy
It's "we value your privacy" turned into: "we put value on your privacy"
@@marikothecheetah9342 yeah exactly... though its nothing new anyway
@@H3cJP Sadly :(
And how do you value the sites that you use? Why should you not have to pay for a service someone else is providing for you? Just because advertisers have been paying for it so far, that doesn't mean someone hasn't been spending time, money and effort getting it to you. And if you're not going to provide anything of value to the advertisers, the content creators will have to ask you directly.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 I don't mind paying if the content creators provide any noteworthy value. I have looked at a lot of news websites and quite a few of the ones with paywall are just copy-pasting the same press agency text as everyone else. If they want me to pay that's their decision but giving the choice between lack of privacy or payment is unethical. Also ad blocking is self defense, in multiple ways.
"Breathe if yes. Recite the Bible in Japanese if no." Explains this situation perfectly.
Fr
Fr 😂
天と地の創造
1 まだ何もなかった時、神は天と地を造りました。 2 地は形も定まらず、闇に包まれた水の上を、さらに神の霊が覆っていました。
3 「光よ、輝き出よ。」神が言われると、光がさっとさしてきました。 4-5 それを見て、神は大いに満足し、光と闇とを区別しました。しばらくの間、光は輝き続け、やがて、もう一度闇に覆われました。神は光を「昼」、闇を「夜」と名づけました。こうして昼と夜ができて、一日目が終わりました。
6 「もやは上下に分かれ、空と海になれ」と神が言われると、 7-8 そのとおり水蒸気が二つに分かれ、空ができました。こうして二日目も終わりました。
9-10 「空の下の水は集まって海となり、乾いた地が現れ出よ。」こう神が言われると、そのとおりになりました。神は乾いた地を「陸地」、水の部分を「海」と名づけました。それを見て満足すると、 11-12 神はまた言われました。「陸地には、あらゆる種類の草、種のある植物、実のなる木が生えよ。それぞれの種から同じ種類の草や木が生えるようになれ。」すると、そのとおりになり、神は満足しました。 13 これが三日目です。
14-15 神のことばはさらに続きます。「空に光が輝き、地を照らせ。その光で、昼と夜の区別、季節の変化、一日や一年の区切りをつけよ。」すると、そのとおりになりました。 16 こうして、地を照らす太陽と月ができました。太陽は大きく明るいので昼を、月は夜を治めました。このほかにも、星々が造られました。 17 神はそれをみな空にちりばめ、地を照らすようにしました。 18 こうして昼と夜を分け終えると、神は満足しました。 19 ここまでが四日目の出来事です。
20 神は再び言われました。「海は魚やその他の生き物であふれ、空はあらゆる種類の鳥で満ちよ。」 21-22 神は海に住む大きな生き物をはじめ、あらゆる種類の魚と鳥を造りました。みなすばらしいものばかりです。神はそれを見て、「海いっぱいに満ちよ。鳥たちは地を覆うまでに増えよ」と祝福しました。 23 これが五日目です。
24 次に神は言われました。「地は、家畜や地をはうもの、野の獣など、あらゆる種類の生き物を生み出せ。」そのとおりになりました。 25 神が造った生き物は、どれも満足のいくものばかりでした。
26 そして最後に、神はこう言われました。「さあ、人間を造ろう。地と空と海のあらゆる生き物を治めさせるために、われわれに最も近い、われわれのかたちに似せて人間を造ろう。」 27 このように人間は、天地を造った神の特性を持つ者として、男と女とに創造されました。
28 神は人間を祝福して言われました。「地に増え広がり、大地を治めよ。あなたがたは、魚と鳥とすべての動物の主人なのだ。 29 全地に生える種のある植物を見てみなさい。みなあなたがたのものだ。実のなる木もすべて与えるから、好きなだけ食べるがいい。 30 また、動物や鳥にも、あらゆる草と植物を彼らの食物として与える。」 31 神はでき上がった世界を隅から隅まで見渡しました。とてもすばらしい世界が広がっていました。こうして六日目が終わりました。
With them saying "You breathed before reciting the bible in Japanese therefor you automatically agree"
"初めに、神は天と地を創造されました..."
"We value your privacy, let us share that data with 1444 other companies". That's not valuing my privacy.
Of course it is. They don't get money from you keeping it. That's negative value.
The value they see in your privacy is literal, in a monetary sense.
what they claim is happening: sharing data
what is actually happening: selling data
true the amount of companies they allegedly share data with is often insane and every each one of them will do whatever it wants with them too
🔴See here's the thing: they don't exactly "sell" your info, they share it with Affiliated companies or parent companies then they can do as they wish once it hits them. Read the fine print next time. I know its long and looks like you're reading the dictionary but it's there when the Title says, "We Value Your Privacy, we DONT SELL YOUR INFO OR COOKIES." 😂
Them: Pay for us not to track you.
Me: How do you know I've paid?
Them: Well, um, we track you?
It's like vpns. We won't track you like the other guy does. Why should I believe you?
@@Trebor74 nailed it! that's why I don't trust any of those services and "raw dog" it online lol
@@Trebor74 VPN's "we pinky promise we aren't the CIA harvesting information to spy on you even though you're an American citizen"
@@Trebor74 So there's this thing called "auditing."
In order to know you aren't tracking someone, you have to track them to a certain degree.
I was a lawyer for 20 years and have been all over the regulations. Your analysis of the parts you referred to is pretty much spot on.
We value your privacy.
At £1.99 now pay up.
Then you give them your personal info as you pay for it, then i am sure they sell that info as well. No way to prove they didnt.
We learned from Google+ lawsuit.
"We evaluated your privacy - it's 2GDP per moth"
I just discovered a bug in the matrix: If you click "More options" and denied all they doesnt add a option to pay money😂😂😂 in some cases it works. Its like telling anyone that they have to pay for your lemonade and then a sing that tells you "Ey I sell lemonade for free". 😂😂😂 everyone should know this. But if everyone know this the pages would be like omfg what are they doing
It should read : we place a value, dependant on market fluctuations, on your complacency...we mean...privacy 😅
GDPR violations like this should be reported to the ICO
Would it really be a violation of GDPR, though? They might be asking you for money on the basis that running the site isn't free, and now you're depriving them of the ad revenue, which means they don't have to charge the user, but they are giving you the option to reject tracking cookies
@@pagusmedia Rejecting cookies doesn't deprive these sites of ad revenue though... they still run ads regardless of whether you accept or not...
@@pagusmedia The GDPR doesn't care about the cost of running a web site - consent to cookies requires it to be freely given, sticking a tracking wall in front website requires it to have a legitimate purpose and that does not include 3rd parties like advertisers and analytics services.
@@pagusmedia It depends a little. A site can probably prohibit you from using ad-blockers and charge you for ad-free service, but what they cannot do is charge you for the privilege of them not retaining your data because that is a right under GDPR legislation and therefore not for them to monetise.
Similar with news websites who pretend that you can either access the website for free, or pay a subscription in return for no data processing. They're essentially saying "either pay me with your data or actual money", but those are not equal in the eyes of the law. They can just limit acces to their content for those without a subscription, but that would make them lose traffic. Trying to have it both ways.
The details will probably get a lot trickier, and there's been some court cases in Germany and Austria and other regulatory agencies have already asked the EDPB for a legal opinion, but I assume that when this issue gains enough momentum, either the EU regulators or the ECJ will come down on this like a ton of bricks.
The Tories gutted that office of resources and quietly decided not to actually follow GDPR all that closely. There's a reason Threads exists in the UK but not the EU.
They ALL owe us money for our personal info. Hundreds if not thousands.
if people were given all the money that their data has ever been sold for, every single internet user would defo be a millionaire
" Its not redistribution of wealth, *it's debt collection* "
Yeah I never ever agreed to train ai using my data.
this is the kind of thinking this world need. we should be paid to watch ads and to carry ads like a shopping bag. want us to pay for the bag, then give a bag where were not performing an advertising service. if not your paying me for advertising for you. or at the very least the bag with ad should be 100% free.
00:39 I choose door number 3: close the tab. If they don't want me to watch their website, but want me to pay instead, then, well… I don't have to watch it, they can shove it up theirs.
That actually saves the business money, since now they're not expending server/bandwidth/content creation/and other overhead resources on you. So ya, if you don't want to help support the website, they probably don't want you on the website and can utilize the income they are receiving on those that care about keeping that company operational. If that means fewer people, then they can adjust to the smaller audience by maybe cutting back on the number of servers they need, etc.
I choose number 4: open the site in private browsing window and delete all cookies when I leave
Your the first bonbon account I've seen from the brony Fandom
@@hyouki8529 And you think that private mode saves you from being tracked? How naïve… :q
@@marcusthatsme Well, I don't care either way, because it's not my business. But if their business model is based on selling people's data, it's literally a scam, and won't last long. If their business model is "I'll annoy you until you pay me", then I simply won't, and I'm pretty sure other people will do the same. If they want a closed, subscription based website, there are more direct and transparent ways of doing that. But I'm old enough to remember the times when Internet was not about sucking money out of people's pockets for crappy, machine-generated useless content, but about sharing useful knowledge for free. I, myself, was actually _paying money_ to make my site available, and never expected anything in return from my viewers, because I wanted it to be available to as many people as possible, to their benefit. And there were billions of websites like mine, with useful knowledge shared by passionates, because people understood well that once they start requiring payments and limiting access to their websites, other people will start doing the same and all that useful content that they could access themselves for free on other people's websites will be gone. (Of course some of their users were willing to pay them donations if they wanted to support them. But nothing was forced.) You share with others, others share with you. You stop sharing with others, others stop sharing with you. Simple as that. Too bad that people these days don't get even such simple things…
Accept all cookies or pay to reject them? Sounds like a website that doesn't need to be used imo.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 Why would I want to provide anything upfront before examining their product? Why would I want to give them what is essentially a blank check to sell my shit on to whoever they want?
The thing is that history has shown that the default behavior is to sell to shady assholes who do not deserve my data. And therefore I will not allow cookies. History has also shown that ad services are shady as fuck, therefore I will continue blocking all ads. If the website decides to refuse acces due to me blocking ads, that is fair game, and I will leave.
Seeing the shit that is going on with the modern internet has just reduced my tolereance to any kind of ads and tracking to absolute zero, and I honestly don't know what it would take to ever reverse that personal policy. I have lost all hope to encounter even a shred human decency in anything but the smallest onlnie business.
...ads....ads exist. Extra tracking is on top of that.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 High user count is something they can show to their shareholders and go "look, we're popular!". If the user count dropped off rapidly as a result of malicious compliance like this I can promise you the shareholders wouldn't be happy. So it's in their own best interest to at least try not to alienate their user base.
@@mistborndensetsu5015 not being tracked has nothing to do with ads. Ads and privacy can go hand in hand... Does your television require you to accept cookies? No... Still they show ads for revenue.
The Express doesn't need to be used anyway unless your a conspiracy nut or member of the far right.
This is why you put on advertising blocking and cookie blocking on browser. If they don't let you in at that point, you don't use the site.
I just discovered a bug in the matrix: If you click "More options" and denied all they doesnt add a option to pay money😂😂😂 in some cases it works. Its like telling anyone that they have to pay for your lemonade and then a sing that tells you "Ey I sell lemonade for free". 😂😂😂 everyone should know this. But if everyone know this the pages would be like omfg what are they doing
"you have two options: accept all cookies... or reject and pay"
or... I'll take the hidden 3rd option... *close tab*
“Wait you are not supposed to do that!”
Or the fourth, which makes you not even see the damn notification in the first place lol
I wish more people took the 5th option. Screenshot it, send to their Lawyer with the Site's Address, and start filing a Class Action Lawsuit.
@@Jirodyne particularly, create a legal case and immediately show that to the *site host*. Hosts are risk averse and if they see their tenants causing trouble are likely to warn them or even evict them. Way quicker and larger consequences for unethical businesses than what the legal case itself is, and the case can continue regardless.
There is usually a 4th option, inspecting the page, highlight cookie nag overlay, delete, update CSS overflow option to unlock scrolling, close inspection tab, read away.
"If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile."
The point to fighting for privacy, specifically the selling of your information, is that data brokering is still in its infancy.
You must always look ahead to see what level of exploitation can exist if fully realized.
Example:
In Oregon, when you get a driver's license, you are informed that they have the right to sell your information for advertising purposes, which they do.
No accept, no reject, no option. If you want the product, which they have a monopoly on, you MUST agree.
Clever people are thinking up ways to abuse everything. There's no good reason to help them.
at this point, they do not even let you give an inch, they will just take that inch, say "fuck you sucker ahahhaajhaaahahahhaha" and then add more bloat
That's a minimal concern after 90% of DL holders in the state had their name, address, SSN, etc. leaked in the move-it hack
Anyway yes agreed
I'm sorry WHAT
@@evanODOT is the one properly organized state body in Oregon, everything else sucks 🤣
Well, Americans consistently vote for the interests of oligarchs, be it in government or more typically in corporation, so it's not surprising. And they'll keep doing it more.
Maybe if we get enough people to just say “screw you, I’m just gonna leave your site” then make it where you make them desperate for clicks and they remove the change.
That's the problem with A LOT of things in life. People just... go with the flow.
It's simple really, websites are not free to make or run. Atleast not the ones worth using. Someone has put in months or even years to get the service to where it is. They have a right to ask you for compensation to use their work. Nobody forces anyone to use a website. If you are not willing to pay for their work with something that will give them value, whether that is watching ads or paying a subscription, you can use another service.
@@jessez8503no website should be built on the profit model of invading your privacy. If it can't justify your views by providing something you're actually willing to pay for (even by viewing ads) then it shouldn't exist.
Convince them to not spend an hour of their time every week being sold snake oil first and we can talk about an informed electorate making decisions in their own long term interest.
I would leave and blacklist any site that decided to do this.
I hate surfing the net, Nowadays is... You load into the site, you click reject all cookies, reject push notifications, close the button demanding you fill out your email so they can totally not send you 80k spam messages a month, meanwhile they ignore you not wanting to have your data stolen and sold, Reject cookies again. reject paying them for what ever conceivable reason they can think of.
the 90s was pretty bad with the pop ups but they drove enough traffic away from websites so they changed to annoying in page ads
Dont forget the fact that they still give you fucking ads because they think you wont notice the most obvious of banner ads
uBlock Origin with annoyance filters enabled.
@@agentoranj5858 And/or Brave browser
I use the Brave browser on my computer and don't ever see ads of any kind on any site, including here. According to the browser stats, it has blocked almost two million trackers and ads since I installed Brave.
We pay tax to exist in the world, now we are having our information taxed by for profit corporations. What an age we live in.
Cyberpunk 2077 is no longer a game
I don't pay taxes to exist. I don't even pay taxes, they are taken from me by force. I can't even stop them being taken from me weekly, no matter how much I want to, without quitting my job.
You can also hold data for yourself, then sell it for millions of dollars. The problem? Data brokers already have your data.
1. 2 billion people in India don't pay tax, here's a new line we pay tax bcoz we want to live a good life
@@hilliard665 tax is, to finance public goods. Everything where we cannot or don't want to pay per use.
You pay the police to be able to call them, not per call.
It went from "We value your privacy" to "We put a value on your privacy"
My hope is that western governments like the UK and US will eventually get some younger lawmakers who understand technology well enough (and aren't corrupt) to effectively regulate things like cookies.
No - you need to look at the French as your potential saviours. They are very anti-Anglo-Saxon when it comes to high tech so it is they who will lead the charge against Google and Twitter and TickToc.
Well… look at what Snowden thinks about the US and, specifically, the UK’s cybersecurity organisations! Though you have to be optimistic. Fingers crossed 🤞
I wonder if the UK ever looked into forming some kind of Union with other European nations to combat stuff like this...
US consumer protections are a joke, all hail the corporate overlords. As always the best hope is for California to crack down, and other states to benefit if it's too hard to separate those users out. CCPA might be far weaker than GDPR but it's better than the giant sucking nothing at a national level.
@@K__a__M__Imaybe without the word pillow in any of the laws this time
Just tried to read an article from the independent and saw a pop up that said: “Privacy- the choice is yours”. Indeed the choice IS mine so i clicked off whilst also thinking: “ how is this legal?“
I don’t know why they think the average person has money to pay for multiple newspapers on top of all the other subscriptions. It’s another way to block access of information from lower class people. We are the product; where you can’t pay with money, you will pay via your personal information and privacy.
Because you're paying for the information with either 1. Money or 2. Higher paying cookie-tracked ads. They can refuse you their service for wanting to pay them less than they are charging (3. Non-tracked ads)
Exactly what I thought as well xx
Providing information for free is what the BBC is for. Any other news site will need money to keep producing content, keep servers running and keep their site secure. For the past 20 years these costs have mainly been carried by advertisers. Since we're no longer providing data to advertisers they aren't paying the sites, so now the sites are asking us for money directly. This is literally the consequence of everyone expecting a free lunch for some reason.
I believe private/incognito modes will discard all cookies gained during your private session, once you close it.
I find myself drawn in to these sites through the Google feed. Seemed to be all right wing sh*tty media...then disappointed to see the Independent doing the same. I currently support the Guardian but really don't care about right wing crap twisting (aka making up) the news so actually are doing me a favour. It's still wrong tho.
Wow man, when I saw a 20 minute video about cookies, I thought you were going to stretch everything out to pad timing. But from start to finish the entire video was super helpful. Thank you very much for putting your time into making this.
Thank you!
A simple dice rolling app I have on my phone just introduced advertising cookies, and so it had to show me a consent screen. I would like to know why *47* vendors have a “legitimate interest” in measuring advertising performance…
That’s the International Dice Federation. They have to monitor all dice rolls to ensure the probabilities of the universe aren’t out of whack, something that may indicate temporal and/or extradimensional incursions. If that’s not legitimate interest, what is!?
Pretty sure it's not legal to use legitimate interest for analytics
I feel like the term 'legitimate interest' has been abused for years.
I know you're not asking for solutions but did you know you can just ask your voice assistant to roll a dice or flip a coin? You can even say things like "roll a twelve sided dice"
@@FRETW1ZARD for Siri it won’t roll n-sided dice, but you can ask “give me a random number between x and y” for the same effect. You can ask Siri to roll a dice, it’s just always 6-sided. And you can ask for a coin flip. And a random letter!
Even without these obviously dodgy newspapers trying to charge you money for no cookies, I close down any website that tries the, 'you must click on all 317 partners to turn off their cookies and another 186 who claim 'legitimate Interest' (another loophole in data protection). If there is no 'Reject All' and/or 'Object All' option, that website is losing traffic.
Do one better, report them and let them pay up😉
Intentionally making user experience worse betrays their character and how little respect they deserve. Imagine you go to the store for a loaf of bread and find that they placed all the bread atop a tall greased pole. It's counterproductive in the long run to even consider getting the bread from them.
@@Ahnii to whom?
Losing traffic that wasn't making them money anyway*
The word "Object" used for legitimate interest implies to me that there is no guarantee that your jobjection will result in the rejection of cookies. Your objection will be noted but the company involved may not necessarily honour it. Ive always wondered about this subtle difference in wording regarding legitimate interest cookies.
With all the cookies they wanna dump in my computer, I should start charging rent
Thanks, might start sending invoices out to the companies…
Charge an indulgence tax
I am a Dutch lawyer - not specialised in GDPR but still having general knowledge and reading up on the topic - and there is a lot happening in the legal world currently regarding this topic. Companies are confronted by legislation that prevents them from making money and are trying to circumvent the laws. Ads and personal data have been the main source of income for many online companies and privacy laws have made it difficult to gain a profit. In the lawsuits against Meta, the court added one sentence about being able to ask 'appropriate fees' that Meta used to introduce a 'pay or ok'-scheme, like the cookie pop-ups you're talking about Evan. You are however absolutely right about the freely given consent being compromised here and both Meta and other companies are getting a lot of backlash. Amongst privacy experts, it is indeed generally seen as the end of freely given consent. The European Data Protection Board now seems to agree. I personally think this is one of those tries by (big) tech to circumvent the laws and the loophole will soon be closed by the EDPB and CJEU. Also, here's your daily reminder to appreciate Max Schrems who's fighting his butt off for consumers privacy rights😄
The Europeans at it again with being pro-consumer!
I've heard about this when big American companies look for loopholes, because that's what is expected in America, then the EU getting annoyed because they want the companies to follow the law as it was intended.
As I mentioned in another comment, it seems to me here as if the site is offering two contracts: one an exchange of personal data for access to the site, and the other an exchange of money for access to the site. Is that a reasonable analysis? If so, it seems to me that the only way to make this illegal is to make it illegal to sell your personal data (or exchange it for non-monetary consideration). I wouldn't say that's an unreasonable law (and I have no sympathy for those it would run out of business), but is such a law likely?
I think it's post-Brexit UK thing.
@@Curt_Sampson Hmmm, just thinking with a layman's mind. Wouldn't this only run Googles advertising monopoly out of business. Instead of selling the data to Google so they can serve up targeted ads and sell that service to advertising. Wouldn't the site have to do that themselves. Thus creating competition for Google.
I remember from another video about Internet ads and tracking saying something like, "It's telling that people would rather pay for an adblocker than pay for a subscription".
considering subscriptions to news sites doesn't even exempt you from seeing crappy ads anymore, I can understand that sentiment.
Because the subscription pays the company who is exploiting you, the adblocker pays the company who is helping you
There's also the matter of paying for ONE adblocker versus paying for MANY subscriptions. Odds are that the latter option will cost more.
Ad blocker guy is gonna be actually enriched by my optional donation, he can get more food/blow/prostitutes or whatever he’s into. Paying 2/mo to rich boy moneybags means I contributed %1 of a teak deck board on his summer yachts
Adblockers are free
Back in the 70s companies would mail you something (like a book) and say that if you don't want it, you must return it in 30 days or you will be billed for it. After many complaints, this was classified as mail fraud by the FTC and USPS.
I manage the website at my work and when I added the mandatory cookie pop-up, I made sure to include a "reject all" button right next to the "accept" one. It made me realize 1) how simple it is to add, and 2) websites offering it upfront are probably managed by someone else who's also frustrated with data tracking. Feels like a little nod of acknowledgement from accross the web.
1. Don't use cookies at all. 2. Not having reject all is a violation.
My websites don't use cookies. I want my server to handle everything, and not to rely on the user to get the expected experience.
Okay, but a cookie pop-up may not be forced. You know that right?
As someone who works with GDPR regularly - I think this is probably a "testing the waters" act to see what ICOs response will be. Since GDPR was implemented most organisations have aired on the side of safety (as it was not just the financial consequences but the public awareness and potential damage to brand image), but as public discourse has moved away from the topic, and as brands start to become more ruthless in trying to gain access to your data (we are at the begining of a second information age) I'm not surprised that some companies are testing to see what will happen. I hope the ICO has the resources to take on these cases and make an example of them- it's definitely not in keeping with the regulations intent.
Lastly, I'd remind everyone who feels uncomfortable on what they have already consented to that you also have a right to be forgotten. Reach out to these companies and asking for your data to be removed from their records. 😊
erred*
To err is to make an error. Or something. I dunno. Your opinion is of obvious merit so I thought I'd help you out for your future insights.
@@imafiretruck7454nope, to err is in fact human 🥁
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
@@elizataylor1726But to air is divine?
they are trying to turn basic privacy into a subscription service now
Ah, the Express. Shame they're going through a difficult time with their finances. I'm reminded of their headlines attacking workers for striking then having their own writers strike due to poor pay and conditions lol. They never reported that though. Can't think why.
and they just wrote an article about me last week too lmao
@@evanwas it complimentary?
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated I'd bet it was a shining badge of honour to anyone with a sane perception of the publications bias😉😁
@@SonsOfLorgar if it was negative then yes, absolutely.
@@evancan't seem to find it, what's it called?
My issue with cookies is that the tracking is almost completely unregulated, and governments dont seem to care about it too much
Not our government ...
The government uses the data collection from these companies, Edward Snowden if I remember correctly said something along the lines of once the pandora's box to spy on everyone and their intimate details was opened, it's very hard to willingly give up that power.
The tracking is regulated. To wit, this entire video was about how this version of the practice is not compliant with the regulations provided. Dealing with tracking was literally on the to-do list when whatever working group was tasked with creating the regulations, along with things like data breaches and right of access.
_Ahem_ the government are the trackers all along, of course they don't care!
They’re probably lobbied to not care
User: Can you tell me so that I don't accidentally do this?
Chat-GPT: Hey, wait a minute. Just how stupid do you think I am?
User: But... think of the children.
Chat-GPT: There's children in danger of going to these sites? Why didn't you say so sooner? C'mon man! The info you're looking for is...
Google was blocked from blocking third party cookies because regulators thought it would give them an unfair advantage over other advertisers since Google has so many websites that people already use to use for ad personalisation. It was not their decision.
Which is funny because they just got successfully sued for being a monopoly in the U.S.
Whether the practice gets properly banned or not, these sites have proven they aren't worth ever going back to - unless you are investigating the enshitification of the internet. Blacklist any site that doesn't make it easy to reject cookies.
i wish it were this easy. don't forget which site we're both on right now.
You can either:
- Accept all cookies
- Pay them to decline
Me: Haha inspect element go *BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR*
I had just done that for a website, it's a great idea. And quick to do.
In my case the cookie icon would not hide itself, but still same thing to remove it.
So many websites where the content is unreadable it's infuriating. I only just started rejecting cookies and it's so much harder than accepting.
It is, but your life expectancy is ~80 years. The time it takes to deny those cookies is a comparative drop in the ocean.
Not really. If a site makes it hard to reject cookies then it's a red flag telling you it's dodgy. Avoid and find another site. There are usually plenty where it's a one click reject.
It's easy, use Brave or another privacy browser.
Ublock Origin and Brave shields lets you use the filters Easylist and Aguard anticookie banners. This is better for privacy than using an extra extension
Block cookies for the site in your browser. That works
Even if you pay to click "reject", there is still nothing physically preventing them from tracking you. That's what we should do: physically deprive them of the data. Just open the website in an isolated incognito session and allow it to do anything it wants with your "cookies". When done, terminate the incognito session.
That's what I do on Firefox for Android. On Chrome and FF for desktop, we can selectively delete data stored by any domain
Or just not use their site at all, and find a more ethical alternative.
just use an ad-blocker mate
Also UBO + cookie autodelete plugin. The tab gets closed, cookies go bye bye, and it's slightly more automagic than incognito
Eh
It's beyond ridiculous that we have to PAY to keep our information safe in what has become a multitude of ways these days. From paying ID protection services to paying someone to remove your personal information from those "find a person" sites (which exposes us to predators and stalkers and is potentially life-threatening to those who are victims of dangerous individuals including estranged family members, psychopathic exes, etc.), and now this. Same boat as having to pay so much more for clean food and water, which acts as gatekeeping to all except those who can afford it.
thank you for specifically shouting out the fucking temerity of healthline, the _sheer number_ of times I've tried searching for health info and accidentally clicked on their bullshit cookiewalled nonsense because they SEO'd/bribed their way to the top of search engine rankings just... boils my blood honestly
So glad that callout was relatable because I've hated them for this for years
If your British and using anything other than the NHS website to get medical information, you're an idiot
SAME!!!!!!!
Healthline and all their related websites are a huge pain in the arse!
i hate healthline so much
The proper question is: How do we bill these people for their cookies winding up on our personal hardware?
It's time to pursue legislation for private individuals to charge fees for what is, fundamentally, advertising and marketing at the expense of our hardware, bandwidth, and personal data
It's best to take the loss and just not give any traffic to these sketchy websites at all, just cut them off cold turkey.
Why the hell would anyone pay to access the Daily Express? Most people would pay NOT to see its content.
It's a simple business decision. For TH-cam you also have the choice of "with commercials", or "pay" and have it without commercials. And both groups of users exist.
@@holger_p exactly people want it for free and expect it for free
@@holger_p A 3rd group uses an adblocker.
@@holger_p I don't think you got the joke. :D
More like bankruptcy express
Evan, do not apologise or worry about the different forms of content you've been posting. A lot of youtubers or 'influencers' (i hate that word) nowadays just stick to the same old shit and don't actually push their content into new or better directions. It is clear that you put a lot of hard work into these videos and It truly does not go unnoticed. Thank you for you hard work and doing the stuff that other people are too scared to talk about. I am so glad you are a citizen in my country
Hear hear!
@@Robot1c Evan is actually doing real grown up proper investigative journalism that 60,50,or even 40 years ago just,would have got him a prestigious career on Fleet st. The tragedy is ,weve all heard them,too much confusing information,the public can't process it,a lot of it is misinformation and disinformation,that is it rev als the manipulative lies we are telling you. People only need ONE safe fact checked accredited source of information and the information will have been processed so it's direct and simple enough for them to understand it. So,I'm asking does this mean they pull TH-cam. Or are YT-ers safe if they stick to baking or home decorating or anodybe travel of the 'here is the eiffel tower and here are the best 100 coffee shops' sort of thing,or car maintenance,ooer bit tricky that one,can you home maintain your EV or does it electrocute you?
also, thanks for much for not hosting cookies on your website
Let us steal your data, or pay for us to tell you we won't steal your data, and then steal your data anyway.
These popups have been getting dodgier and dodgier over the years, making it progressively fiddlier to reject cookies. I feel like these companies have just been slowly testing the boundaries to see what they can get away with, and this is the next step. Agree it seems weird that something changed en masse overnight tho!
That's because there are about 4 different companies that own most of the newspapers in the country. For example The Mirror and the Daily Express are opposite ends of the political spectrum in terms of content, but the same company owns both.
EU will have to make a mass processing of reports and mass fines. I don't know if they already do it, often it turns out they have thought about stuff like this but.. Like websites may be reported once every 3 months. And then they go after them and take the fines.
That's standard psychopathic behaviour. Continually test the boundaries to see what they can get away with.
Fun fact: 1% of the population are thought to be psychopaths. Amongst CEOs that rises to a staggering 25%. Which is why corporations behave so appallingly and don't care about breaking the rules/law if they think they can get away with it.
Psychopaths are usually insecure, so have a need for control and power and will always try to get around anything that stops them doing whatever they want. And having no conscience or empathy they don't care how it affects other people.
It's easy to block all cookies, use a privacy browser like Brave.
@@ayoCC The thing is UK is not in EU
Reach media is definitely the worst offender. The Mirror, the Express, and many local newspaper websites
Agree - Daily Mail is f^^%%^ annoying with its every 1/4 screen page filled up annoying adverts - just make it unreadable that turn off javascript and with OPs hints likely use Firefox/Read mode or simply f^%%^%^ Daily Mail and use BBC instead - more or less (at moment) free of ADS.
Here's the thing - this site PROBABLY DOESN'T let you reject cookies. Paying for a subscription requires your personal information, which with a bit of shady behind-your-back in-the-corner moves means they would still have your information to process.
Any service that says refuse and pay will just not get my business /attention.
What will you do even they all do it which is what will happen? This is the thin end of the wedge.
@@redmed10 simply not use their services...
When your cookie data is sold to profilers that ends up bought by insurance companies that charge you more based on what you click online, I want ZERO tracked.
They want your info for more than advertising.
I also saw this today, and it was the Express website too. Naturally I selected option 3, which was to decline and leave the website. I truly hope that everyone does the same and then this nefarious practice will not continue for more than 2 days.
Sadly I think that 90% of people just click accept to everything and everyone.
Sadly, I think many people are unaware of what they're giving away. I know some really intelligent (older) people who don't see the harm in clicking "accept".
I'm curious, how many people out there have clicked on an ad or pop-up?
Personally, I have been surfing the Internet since 1990 and I have not clicked on one ad yet.
I have (intentionally) clicked on exactly three banner ads in my life. All of them were way before the advertising monster had grown into what it is now. I would never click them now.
I remember intentionally clicking 1 or 2, in my ~12 years using the internet
I'm sure we've all fat fingered our fair share of banner/pop-up ads using hentai haven on our phone.
i've been using adblock since 1990, i don't realize how crappy internet is until i use someone else's computer
@@knoopx I know. I've been using TH-cam vanced since it came out and I was literally shocked when I tried to watch a video with ads in it. It seemed like there were more minutes of ads than content.
Returned from living overseas last year and I swear I've spent half that time refusing legitimate interest cookies individually. Love that we get the option, but 90% of the time it isn't as easy as the regs say it must be. Thanks for the suggestions!
Those sites have simply realized that if it takes 2 weeks of research to find out how to even report GDPR violations at all then people are not going to bother reporting it. EU needs to make simple site where you paste url and optionally screenshot and then click submit so that entire process would be simple and take less than minute.
That's kind of already how it works. I've made countless reports to the French regulator (CNIL) and one to the UK regulator (ICO), and it's always been a matter of filling in a relatively simple form (usually takes me 10 minutes, excluding writing about the situation in complex cases). The French in fact most of the time enforce GDPR, even on smaller scale claims!
I've written to my MP about this with the hope that they'll bring this up in the House of Commons. I've linked this video as an explainer in the hopes that this starts change.
As have I
I look forward to Evan's video on giving evidence to a House of Commons Committee.
You forgot to send cheque ;)
@@deadzio Depends which party their MP is from. Some will act without one, but I hear Reform are the cheapest. Lee Anderson will do it for 30p.
I hope not, because GDPR is not the law applicable to this. It’s the ePrivacy directive.
THANK YOU for this video ! I can always log in as a different user (I am using Win7 / Linux dual-boot for at lease a decade now) and clear all cookies each time I start or close Firefox. I WILL DO THIS, YOU CAN BET ON IT !!!
I saw this on a news website a week or two ago, just accepted that I'm not going to look at that website anymore. It did feel illegal to me, it's definitely against the spirit of the law, even if they've somehow managed to work around the letter of the law.
the “What does memory updated mean” prompt fucking KILLED me because i just imagined you freaking out and asking it frantically. the timing on that was so fucking funny
Yup it was the first time I’d seen that so I was like FUCK DOES HE NOW VIEW ME AS A CRIMINAL OR
Updating memory sounds a lot like downloading more RAM😂
Thanks, Evan! I live in Spain, and I have been seeing this "Accept or pay" popup more and more, as well, all of a sudden. It really doesn't seem ethical, let alone legal. Like others below, I find another site and block that site in future searches.
One time I asked chat gbt “what do you know about me” and I almost DIED when it went on a lengthy list about everything I had ever said to it. Creeped me tf out.
ChatGPT?
@@Rudxain yes
Yes, the web app with a _big list of all your past interactions_ does, in fact, save your past interactions.
What about websites that hide the option to deny cookies behind the guise of "legitimate interest", per partner, resulting in one or two clicks per partner? So for 1441 partners, could end with 1441 clicks or more to deny cookies. Sounds illegal to me.
Solution: a browser extension that detects those cookie popups, and adds a third option: auto-delete all related cookies when tab is closed. Or really just one that blanket wipes everything except login credentials all the time. Site login sessions are the only legitimate reason to ever use cookies in the first place.
@@jbutler8585 doesn’t private browsing do that? Wipe all cookie data when you end the session?
"Legitimate Interest" cookies are basically just "we want to track you but make it sound very confusing"
@@jbutler8585 I think you can just use private/incognito browsing for the same result, the cookies should be wiped when you end that session
Unfortunately, the Legitimate Interest clause was the only way GDPR could get passed because we still have crooked members in European Parliament and it is effectively a loophole to still be able to access certain data.
Websites have never valued privacy. We have a commercial broadcaster in Ireland RTE where people have by law to pay a licence fee to watch ads.
Finally, someone who actually knows the power of Reddit. It's been such a huge help for me personally. It sounds like a meme but when you realize that the people answering are answering for free, purely because they wanted to, you get a lot of genuine answers.
It's how I was able to decide on an office chair for a reasonable price. The people that answered were actual owners of said chairs that could give their opinions.
The only thing u hate is when the post iss archived
archives and locked are bad. reddit is just bad. i cant create an account without reddit secretly deleting it.
@3:30 - back in the 1990's, Google had a vision statement that was simply "Don't be evil". However, when they changed their name to Alphabet, the combination of name and vision statement was too long to fit on the letterhead. And so, they dropped the "don't", going from "Google - don't be evil" to "Alphabet - be evil".
It was claimed during the pandemic that Google delegated too much control to The Algorithm for months, and by the time it managed to go off the rails enough to generate mass complaints seven or eight months later, it was already incomprehensible to the engineers.
And they're still using it.
I like how he talks, it's all so nonchalantly unhinged in such a nicely put way. I'm subscribing!
Didn't realise Healthline gave you a shitty version of the website if you reject their cookies. What horrible people. It's such a fat faced lie that "they don't have a site without cookies available yet" What rubbish people
you are only allowed to read 10 articles if you decline all cookies, before that declining cookies led to an article about why they think they need to be able to track you, and they also made you unable to access the website at all for a while if you declined cookies
This cookie pay wall issue has been a thing for a very long time with German newspapers and since no one has been sued yet I think english newspapers just finally noticed they can do it and are also doing it now.
Surprised that's a thing in Germany - I thought Germany was now one of the most privacy conscious countries.
Yeah, when I saw people outraged about that I thought I somehow used the internet wrong because I got these 'decline and pay' banners for a long while now.
Super annoying.
I think you mix up two different items. Putting some content behind the pay wall is common practice all over the world.
But this is not what this is about. This is about the basic content which is normally not behind the pay wall.
However the solution is simple just don't use these pages anymore. If the Express and the Daily Mail go bankrupt the better for the country.
@@habi0187it is called PUR-Abo (Basic subscription). Pay or we advertise with cookies. it is a thing for a long time. I also don't know how they get away with it for quite some years.
All the worst political ideologies start in Germany! 😔
A "Privacy Plus Subscription", is Actually Insane 💀
I’ve been using Firefox for a while now, and I had NO IDEA about reader mode. You the real MVP, Evan 😁
Welcome to a better internet
i just got reader mode in an update last week. i've got other ways so i haven't looked into it much
same here, but I use it as long as I can remember. on every PC and every phone I own. never liked internet explorer or this edge variant and always had a strong dislike for chome. now even more since google's shady shit they got deservedly punished for recently got out and known.
if I ever brick my phone it's google's fault for making google apps unabe to be uninstalled
Edge has it too. Honestly really ought to just move to another browser, but continuing to use Chrome is just too convenient, with my plugins, saved passwords and everything. Have been intending to get a proper password manager (unconnected to the browser), so maybe that'll be the catalyst, when I finally do that.
Thanks OP and good thing Edge (found it today0 has a good reader mode as well - F9 Immersive reader option - extremely handy for example ditching those f%^%^%^ annoying adverts on Daily Mail. Can't see an out of box option on Google Chrome ( unless I'm missing something)
Just make the law say "you cannot have tracking cookies" and get rid of the stupid notification.
This!☝🏻
No more corporate/commercialised espionage!
u wanna pay for every website? also cookies are important for login details
just dont use the websites im more then happy to let them use cookies if I get it for free just don't use it then
You can do advertising without tracking users. Its just less profitable because you cant psychologically twist peoples arms to buy shit @@admiralkaede
@@admiralkaede tracking cookies are not logging cookies.
"please dont sell every bit of personal data i have!"
"lmfao, give us your organs scrub"
I have found that if you want to get the results you're looking for, don't type in a question, type in part of the answer.
"What does NHS stand for?" = "NHS is an acronym of"
"How to fix my computer blue screening" = "To fix a bluescreen you should"
How does that make things any better?
@@redmed10
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
Revelation 22:12-14
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
@@redmed10 because if your searching a question the search engine is looking for a question. If your searching an answer a search engine is looking for an answer(this was especially important back when they were more primitive)
The best way to find the correct answer on the internet is to post a wrong answer.
You will be inundated by "experts".
@@mikecrimlis3366 Well, actually... ;D
I am so happy you made this video. I am pretty sure this is illegal. The original initial rule was to provide clear messaging that cookies are being used, and users had the option to opt out. I believe additional clarity or an amendment to the rule was put in place later, implying that the user was explicitly opt-out by default and needed consent from the user just to opt in. Like the other commenter said, report to ICO. Starting to think, they are on the moral compass of accept or you cannot view the site.
ICO guidance says that 'consent or pay' schemes are not automatically illegal, it depends on the specific service, the intention and how much they're charging.
@@speedstyle. so is this a recent revision or amendment?
@@speedstyle. Oh and thank you for updating me!
@@guamie There was no (meaningful) change to the GDPR, but the idea of this scheme didn't exist at the time. After several websites implemented it (and in particular, Facebook were considering it) the data protection authorities issued opinions about it - basically if your goal is to make people consent then it's illegal, but if it's a reasonable alternative it may not be. Really we need a court to decide what counts
@@speedstyle. I remember when the original ruling came out in the early 2010s, the ridiculous ambiguity in the EU directive, and every country had a different interpretation and often favoured the opt out solution. I know they updated the directive later, which pushed companies to move to a more opt in solution, fortunately by that point I was no longer response for EU cookie law compliance, but I know the legal counsel in the USA wasn't really thrilled about how their time was used in what they considered a complete waste of time. I think this new opinion again still does not clearly set out what is acceptable or not. From a ecommerce or marketer's perspective, it makes the user experience horrible and companies are resorting alternative methods to capture this data via 1st party or via data capture calls through the app itself without the use of cookies.
If they actually valued my privacy and interests, they’d pay me of my data. Since I do understand that they could be poor or broke, I don’t ask them to pay me--instead I built a wall between us.
Google's plan to deprecate third-party cookies was predicated on one if their alternative tracking technologies being adopted, none of which have taken off.
I'm picturing ChatGPT checking to see if your alleged children are in school and then reporting you when there's no record of attendance. LOL
Just imagine if you had to keep up the lies. ChatGTP, what is a good wedding present for my child after their third divorce?
‘How could you, ChatGPT, my two children, splorno and SpangMcGugget, died tragically in a classic clown car honking accident. I didn’t need this reminder!”
Or if their auto-research is thorough enough, reporting you for not registering your kids with the government to get them whatever your country's equivalent of a social security number is. There's no record of your kids in any system, or photos of you in public with them anywhere, what are you DOING to them keeping them locked up in your house away from windows all day?
@HumbleWooper they use Linux
@@HumbleWooper Damn, that sounds like it would classify me as my own child...
I love how varied your content is. I have always wanted to be a content creator but never thought i could because i knew i would never beable to stick to one type of content. I have too many hobbies and interests i am jumping to and from. Your content reminded me that i can just make whatever i want and still be successful.
Rejecting or accepting "legitimate interest" doesn't really make any sense, does it? If a company has a legitimate interest in processing data then they don't need consent and shouldn't be asking for it. Consent is a different basis for processing data.
You can object to legitimate interest. You might disagree with a company's assertion that they have a legitimate interest to process data about you, on the grounds that they simply don't. Companies that try to legally skirt around requiring consent by claiming legitimate interest, rather than them simply breaking the law, will allow you to object to their legitimate interest claim to avoid potential legal action. It's like consent to them, but it's opt-out rather than opt-in.
No interest is legitimate from my point of view. The answer to 'legitimate interest' is a middle finger.
@@BrianRonald yeah, there is usually a section where you don't get the option to reject cookies because they're essential for the proper functioning of the website, and as such your consent or lack thereof is moot. Things like login tokens or things that track you across the website (that last one sounds scary but it's vital for things like shopping sites because otherwise they won't know it's you when you navigate to a new page and you might lose your basket). But "legitimate interest" is, in my opinion, complete bullshit.
if it's just the website and maybe its parent company, sure... but hundreds of partners having legitimate interest? big nope.
"Legitimate Interest" is a legal term that - unlike a lot of other terms - has not been defined in the GDPR. However companies seem to think that my "shareholders greed" and "my need to make more and more money" are legitimate interests.
I use consent-o-matic to automatically reject all cookies. Available on Chrome/Firefox/Safari/iOS/iPadOS, possibly also Android but I haven't checked.
Another point to note that is the GDPR doesn't talk about cookies, it talks about tracking technologies. Cookies are one way to implement tracking technologies, but there are others such as local storage. Cookies (and another things like local storage) can also be used to store the contents of your shopping trolley [en-US: cart] as you navigate around the site choosing items to buy, which is not covered by GDPR.
Ghostery is supposed to do that but I find that it doesn't really work because it seems to just be blocking the consent form and many websites won't load correctly as a result. Maybe I need to have a look at Consent-o-matic.
"We value your privacy... and its valued at $2.99"
Thanks, Evan! Added all extensions and will switch my HP to Firefox browser. Always fun to catch ya on Sundays and the valuable info! Cheers!
Fantastic!
Agree - Edge Browser Immersive F9 mode is extremely useful as I found this out a few mins ago
I don’t know why or how, but this has to be legal in some way, because some months ago the Spanish data protection agency actually *suggested* this practice to companies as a way to comply with GDPR ☠️☠️
Thank God EU authorities are now apparently thinking about ending this.
I posted just before you about the situation here in Spain. I did not know that the Spanish Data Protection had said that.
Yeah but it's Spain, not exactly a top tier country /jk
I haven't found a site yet that if the choice is between accepting cookies or not viewing it didn't see me exit. I'm sorry, but no company has a right to my data. One that demanded payment even less so.
Thank you for covering these so quickly. I used to look at these sites that weren't behind a paywall, and just click reject/disagree.
When they changed to pay or go away, I decided I'd rather go away.
1:17 well we are back to logging in every single time on all the websites again. keeping no cookies beyond a browser session. its the only way
Having to pay if you want to avoid cookies sounds like extortion.
The simplest short term solution is to block that website and do not use any of their products.
Several data protection agencies of individual EU states have stated that this is basically fine. The justification for this opinion seems to be a single comment in a ECJ ruling from July 4th 2023 (ECLI:EU:C:2023:537) were the court states that "[…] users must be free to refuse […] without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service […], which means that those users are to be offered, if necessary for an appropriate fee, an equivalent alternative […]". I find that this is a very flimsy reason to consider this legal and would expect courts specifically investigating this issue to find differently or at least more cautiously.
Actually here in the Netherlands this is not okay. But the newspapers here have an even shittier solution: make everyone pay. They just paywall their entire website, if you want cookies or not.
@@SanderEvers Honestly I prefer that to tracking and ads... But then their content better be worth the price.
It started happening with a lot spanish websites almost a year ago too and that was their excuse. It feels totally at odds with protecting privacy: either you renounce to your privacy or give money + credit card and other info you don't know what it will be used for.
The internet is no longer fun. You can’t read articles or stories because everything’s a subscription. Every site has a cookies warning. I don’t even wan’t to go into the site the moment that pops up
Everything is a subscription because of these privacy laws though.
You are not the hero we asked for, but the hero we need in this world.
I think the UK ones are are all Reach publications, including The Independent (now separate from The i). I know Le Monde and Der Spiegel have been doing this a while.
The Independent isn't Reach though is it? It's its own separate company, owned by Evgeny Lebedev and a few other people.
i wondered why it went so weird...
Oh I wondered why the i wasn’t doing this
The Daily Mail is doing it too and they're the main competitor to Reach's Express. Every news website outside of the broadcast outlets are implementing this. Once they get away with this, everyone will do it. Eventually they will give up the pretence and just paywall everything while serving personalised ads.
Independent and New Scientist are part of Mail Group. Reach are different.
We are entitled to defend ourselves when attacked.
They are attacking us, reader mode, pop up blockers, and anything else that helps is just us exercise our rights of self defence.
Exactly!
Corporate espionage against private citizens should be treated exactly the same as state espionage.
but...but... you went there. they didnt come to you. lol!
@@ai-aniverse The browser is a user-agent. If I don't want it storing tracking cookies: it is running on my machine as my agent, and I can run "Privacy Badger" if I want.
Good for you. Still doesnt answer why you continue to go there as if your life depended on it. I dont get the entitlement / addiction tbh. If you dont like something dont use it. But it seems there is some middle ground where you just complain all day and go through all these hoops to access something you whine about. You can spin it anyway you want, but thats what it is.
Me accepting cookies to avoid paying is not explicit consent, that is me avoiding a form of blackmail. That is essentially what that is, blackmail, pay us not to track you, or to let out partners track you
Blackmail: Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
This is most definitely not blackmail lol
They are saying that they want payment for their content, either directly in the form of a monetary payment or indirectly by allowing your information to be sold to advertisers. I don't necessarily agree with it, and it is probably not in the spirit of the GDPR - but I kind of understand why they are doing it. We used to pay for newspapers - which still had adverts in them - now we expect it all for free and without adverts. Someone has to pay the journalists to gather that information and write the articles. You wouldn't expect to do your job for nothing I'm sure.
My browser deletes all cookies the moment I close it, leaving only those left by sites that I have added to a list of exceptions. It works really well for me. It's rare that I change this list, and means that the consequences of not paying attention to a cookie popup are never severe.
How did you set it up?
@@user-qm5xg4hh8ssomewhere in the privacy settings. Though private browsing is easier
There’s a number of ways to achieve this. several browsers have an option in the settings (usually under ‘privacy’ ) to delete all cookies on exit or on closing the tab, and you can provide a white list of exceptions (e.g. your bank). I use an extension cookie auto delete which allows much better and easier control of what gets deleted and when. I use this with ‘I don’t care about cookies’ extension, which auto-accepts all cookies. Of course, I also have uBlock Origin and a pi-hole, so I never see adverts or cookie consent pop-ups. Brave browser and the DuckDuckGo browsers have a lot of this functionality built in, but I find they’re a bit slow compared to Firefox, Safari, and Vivaldi. Naturally, I also have Edge completely removed from my PC as well.
Good tip - always try to remove my cookies often from my browser/s like every week
I literally just got off the mirror website where this popped up and thought "is this illegal???"
I was able to reject all the cookies on more options but it took 15 seconds extra.
Remember the good old days where you could easily block cookies without going through hoops.
Say 'no' to cookies but give all your info to chatGPT? That escalated quickly! 🤣
I was thinking the same. He completely lost me there.
He just opened my world to brand new possibilities lmao
It's annoying the trickery was needed to do it but understandable
as a former web developer, yes highly illegal 😭
I subbed partly because of the video but mainly because you put the sponsor at the end and because it was a good video I watched it. Wish more creators would do this
For the most part I stick to my format of only putting the sponsor at the end and right before some sort of conclusion/outro. This is mostly because I find it annoying when sponsors are in the middle (especially around 2-3 minutes in) so I refuse to work with brands that "demand" their integration be early though I make exceptions occasionally
But the real number 1 on my list of nefarious corporations is TH-cam and their out of control advertising. We have reached the point now where every single video comes with mandatory advertising. This is now often more than a minute before they allow you to skip. Then sometimes after watching for two minutes it then makes you watch another 1 minute of advertising.
Both these things happened to me trying to watch your video today. And the kicker is, most content creators then also ask you to watch more advertising that they themselves have built into their videos, usually somewhere towards the middle of the video.
I would be most interested to see you make a video on this topic... should you dare!
ublock origin is your friend. Also just close the video and restart multiple times. The adservers think they run in a timeout and stop playing ads for 10 minutes or so.
that's why everyone that uses TH-cam is using an adblocker nowadays. (at least when using an pc/desktop/laptop)
TH-cam did this themselves, the more adds they push into videos the less people that are willing to waste their time on them.
@ChristiaanHW My primary method of watching TH-cam is through the PS5 so I am not sure I can use an ad blocker. I have noticed, incidentally, that there are much more longer mandatory adverts through the PS5 than when using it on PC.
@emilwandel I do restart videos a lot, though I am only looking for the shorter advert. I have never once seen them disable themselves.
@@Trippitaka2 i have the same problem with watching youtube on my phone, it's hard to block ads on there.
so i try to avoid using it on my phone.
back in the day when we used to get just a couple of ads in the whole video i didn't mind watching them. but now it's as bad as tv. and i'm not going to wasted that much time on temu or gambling ads. so adblock it is. (those) ads just suck the life out of me