4 ms·

I wanted to read the article, but unfortunately it requires me to activate cookies or to subscribe. I was about to create an exception for nautil.us but I had

by chicob 8y ago

I wanted to read the article, but unfortunately it requires me to activate cookies or to subscribe. I was about to create an exception for nautil.us but I had a Wait-Why-Should-I moment. Now I find that request unacceptable, really. They're blocking my access to some article because "Nautilus uses cookies to manage your digital subscription and show you your reading progress. It's just not the same without them." Yes, it is. It is exactly the same. If nautil.us can't go without a cookie, I can go without reading their articles.

dlisboa 8y ago
Without cookies they can't log you in so if you have a paid subscription it'd not work. From what I see they also store on cookies where you've stopped so if you return to the article it's on the same point. In that sense it's not the same experience without them. And it's not unimaginable that they track how many articles you've read a month so they can show you a modal to interest you in a subscription. I can see how you'd not want to be tracked as a visiting user, but even then it's not really sensible to complain when the other option (paying for the content) requires you to activate cookies anyway. Honestly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect (or find it odd) that websites need cookies to function inside a browser in this day and age.
- chicob 8y ago
  I think that they have the right to ask for whatever they want to ask, just as much as I have the right not to concede them what they're asking. I know I need to activate cookies in order to login. I do have a lot of cookie exceptions. But in my opinion, this is not one of thoses cases. One does not require cookies to read HN, for instance. Or many other websites. If they use cookies as a base for their business model - which is perfectly acceptable - at least they could have the decency of saying so clearly. I dislike being treated as too ignorant to understand, and the "user experience" card is getting old.
jaclaz 8y ago
I just accessed the site with javascript disabled (my default setting) and read the article just fine (no cookies, no messages to the effect you reported).
- chicob 8y ago
  I get the same result whichever computer I use. Disabling adblockers has no effect.

by chicob 8y ago

dlisboa 8y ago

Without cookies they can't log you in so if you have a paid subscription it'd not work. From what I see they also store on cookies where you've stopped so if you return to the article it's on the same point. In that sense it's not the same experience without them. And it's not unimaginable that they track how many articles you've read a month so they can show you a modal to interest you in a subscription. I can see how you'd not want to be tracked as a visiting user, but even then it's not really sensible to complain when the other option (paying for the content) requires you to activate cookies anyway. Honestly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect (or find it odd) that websites need cookies to function inside a browser in this day and age.

chicob 8y ago
I think that they have the right to ask for whatever they want to ask, just as much as I have the right not to concede them what they're asking. I know I need to activate cookies in order to login. I do have a lot of cookie exceptions. But in my opinion, this is not one of thoses cases. One does not require cookies to read HN, for instance. Or many other websites. If they use cookies as a base for their business model - which is perfectly acceptable - at least they could have the decency of saying so clearly. I dislike being treated as too ignorant to understand, and the "user experience" card is getting old.

jaclaz 8y ago

I just accessed the site with javascript disabled (my default setting) and read the article just fine (no cookies, no messages to the effect you reported).

chicob 8y ago
I get the same result whichever computer I use. Disabling adblockers has no effect.