4 ms·

Or just use a plugin that blocks jerberscript, and you can read it fine. So does uMatrix (apparently the GDPR shit is an external JS resource!).

vezycash 8y ago
Mobile phone users might not be able to use browser extensions.
- jraph 8y ago
  Time to switch to Firefox Mobile :-) Great extensions: - uBlock Origin - I don't care about cookies - Dark Background and Light Text (especially good with OLED screens but slows things down a bit and there is an annoying white flash on page load, probably because of the way Web Extensions work)
  - aerique 8y ago
    Yeah, I've been browsing with Firefox and adblockers for years on Android.
jraph 8y ago
In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the letter would not suffice. To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content. I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff. Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't want to. Leave me alone. You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that from several people these last weeks.
- ptaipale 8y ago
  Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie acknowledge silliness mandatory.
  - jraph 8y ago
    I agree with you. Session cookies do not require consent but settings-related cookies do and this is a bit silly. But it got worse with GDPR (which I think is good, contrary to the previous law), and I don't care about cookies seems to take care of some of this mess. edit: but actually I don't set settings on random web pages, therefore they should not need my consent anyway. My consent could be asked the first time I set a setting, this would not be intrusive. So maybe the cookies law was not that bad either.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    That’s analogous to saying “don’t complain about the stalkers, complain about the police for requiring stalkers to tell you they’re stalkers”.
    - ptaipale 8y ago
      Not really. We all know that sites give us cookies, it's the standard behaviour in the net, and the constant nagging by all web sites "accept this" and "accept that" and "continue as usual" has led to a situation where each and every site gives a different warning, which we all then blindly accept, because it is way too cumbersome to actually read pages of legalese when you are arriving on a Web page that has some information you googled for. I claim that the cookie-acknowledgement legislation does not add value and is clearly counterproductive. We are taught to accept that "everyone is a stalker" and "it's okay we do it, because you accepted it, didn't you read that legal disclaimer, possibly in a language you do not understand".
      - ben_w 8y ago
        To my understanding, the legislation requires informed consent not mere assent. So this would be like, what, pretending you’re a fan to get an autograph and then revealing that the celebrity has just signed away all their rights? And then asserting that that’s legally binding?

vezycash 8y ago

Mobile phone users might not be able to use browser extensions.

jraph 8y ago
Time to switch to Firefox Mobile :-) Great extensions: - uBlock Origin - I don't care about cookies - Dark Background and Light Text (especially good with OLED screens but slows things down a bit and there is an annoying white flash on page load, probably because of the way Web Extensions work)
- aerique 8y ago
  Yeah, I've been browsing with Firefox and adblockers for years on Android.

jraph 8y ago

In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the letter would not suffice. To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content. I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff. Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't want to. Leave me alone. You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that from several people these last weeks.

ptaipale 8y ago
Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie acknowledge silliness mandatory.
- jraph 8y ago
  I agree with you. Session cookies do not require consent but settings-related cookies do and this is a bit silly. But it got worse with GDPR (which I think is good, contrary to the previous law), and I don't care about cookies seems to take care of some of this mess. edit: but actually I don't set settings on random web pages, therefore they should not need my consent anyway. My consent could be asked the first time I set a setting, this would not be intrusive. So maybe the cookies law was not that bad either.
- ben_w 8y ago
  That’s analogous to saying “don’t complain about the stalkers, complain about the police for requiring stalkers to tell you they’re stalkers”.
  - ptaipale 8y ago
    Not really. We all know that sites give us cookies, it's the standard behaviour in the net, and the constant nagging by all web sites "accept this" and "accept that" and "continue as usual" has led to a situation where each and every site gives a different warning, which we all then blindly accept, because it is way too cumbersome to actually read pages of legalese when you are arriving on a Web page that has some information you googled for. I claim that the cookie-acknowledgement legislation does not add value and is clearly counterproductive. We are taught to accept that "everyone is a stalker" and "it's okay we do it, because you accepted it, didn't you read that legal disclaimer, possibly in a language you do not understand".
    - ben_w 8y ago
      To my understanding, the legislation requires informed consent not mere assent. So this would be like, what, pretending you’re a fan to get an autograph and then revealing that the celebrity has just signed away all their rights? And then asserting that that’s legally binding?