The more tricky and clicky it is, the more shitty the people behind are. This is the lamest way (to try) to bypass rules and therefore pretty insulting to their audience. First contender: Arstechnica.com from Condé Nasty cult.

“Oh, the regulation say we must tell the users why we need cookies and provide how to opt out… mmh but we need those shit, let’s find a way to stay compliant but discourage the opt-out in the most sonOfbitchWay.”

Even, TheVerge and other from Vox Media sphere, which I thought were the nastiest, have changed it back to a simple consent or do not consent button.

ASstechnica likes to play the SJW, rights defensers, criticizes celebrieties or shitty on twitter but with their cookie maze consent shit containing a 100ish of advertisers (that you have to disable one bye one), they are litterally the worse BSiter ever.

So of course, I pass on but not without telling the fediverse how hypocrite this site/company is.

hero point +1 :P

  • slampisko@czech-lemmy.eu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Her:

    He’s probably thinking about other girls

    Me:

    He said “AssTechnica” when “ArseTechnica” was right there

  • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes, there is tons of tracking / garbage on Ars. You can subscribe or use an adblocker to get rid of it.

    https://themarkup.org/blacklight?url=arstechnica.com&device=mobile&location=us

    Tl:dr 42 ad trackers, 73 3rd party cookies, facefuck pixel and google analytics

    Still some of the best tech coverage, especially since wired is a shopping site and motherboard (vice) imploded

    ETA: fun fact, Conde Nast who owns ars and Wired, also owns Reddit. ars coverage of the spez fuckery has been pretty scathing, while still trying to stay within their limits. Check out Scharon Hardings reporting, for instance here https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/are-reddits-replacement-mods-fit-to-fight-misinformation/

    • WuTang @lemmy.ninjaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      of course, but it doesn’t act on this shitty pop-up. I don’t look for clearing cookies, but auto reject these cookies consent modals.

      • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you tried enabling the “annoyance” filters of ublock? A lot of stuff isn’t activated by default.

    • niisyth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve also been enjoying “I don’t care about cookies” extension.

      • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Please don’t hang me up on this, but I’m pretty sure that “I don’t care about cookies” defaults to accepting some/all cookies, while ublock blocks them.

        Both get rid of the banners, but if you also want to get rid of the cookies themselves, then ublock might be better.

        Edit: Or rather ublock blocks the banner, which means that the site can’t legally put a cookie on your PC.

      • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering the name of this community I feel like it is safe to assume that folk around here do care about cookies. An extension that randomly consents to tracking is the opposite of a solution.

    • WuTang @lemmy.ninjaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I use uBlock origin. I will rather give a try to Consent-O-matic mentioned earlier.

      thanks

  • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kinda faulty logic. The majority of those cookie prompts literally do nothing. You can check which actually work if you decline them.

    The shitty companies make it ridiculously easy to interface with because they actually don’t even want to use them. Hence why most don’t do squat. They want your data.

    You’re thinking of it in a legal sense, to make too many hoops to jump thru, which is pointless given users can’t really verify if it does anything.

    • WuTang @lemmy.ninjaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re thinking of it in a legal sense, to make too many hoops to jump thru, which is pointless given users can’t really verify if it does anything.

      so why doing this in first place ?! it should be an opt-in not an opt-out.

      At the very least, paywall are more honest.

      so I maintain: SHITTY COMPANY