6 ms·

Again, Techcrunch doesn't force you to accept anything. They aren't obliged to show you any content they don't want to show you. Now they propose you accept tra

Again, Techcrunch doesn't force you to accept anything. They aren't obliged to show you any content they don't want to show you. Now they propose you accept tracking by the means of cookies in order to access their content and the purpose of those cookies is clearly stated: advertising. It's also clearly stated who has access to this data. It's up to you to decide whether it's worthy or not. It'd be different if there was a cookie they didn't warn you about and isn't needed to view the content. > It forces you to accept cookies that aren't necessary for the functioning of the site to view the content. So, no. That's not what's happening here.

Terretta 8y ago
The law pretty much rules out advertising as a valid reason, and that they can't discriminate on showing content based on opting out of the non-valid reasons (like ads).
- umvi 8y ago
  Excuse my ignorance, but I'm interpreting this to mean that under GDPR users should be able to opt out of cookies and still view the content? That doesn't seem right. Shouldn't I, the creator, be able to say "consent to having cookies or don't use my site?"
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    That's a moral argument, not a legal argument. GDPR codifies through law that you are unable to, legally.
    - umvi 8y ago
      That makes about as much sense (to me) as: "Fill out this survey and you can have a candy bar" "Nope, I won't fill out the survey but I'll still take the candy bar"
      - Terretta 8y ago
        Fill out this survey, while I surreptitiously inject this GPS tracker under your skin, and you can have a candy bar. Don't mind you noting down I stopped by, or these product posters you have up, but I'd rather not have that embedded tracker, thanks. Don't track you? Already jabbed you, LOL... And so the law stepped in.
        umvi 8y ago
        Yeah but now the law creates the opposite problem: Me: Let me serve you targeted ads and you can stream this video you want to watch, deal? You: Nope, I'm just going to stream your video without the ads, LOL Me: That's stealing my bandwidth You: Nope, the EU made it legal so it's not stealing, LOL Me: withdraws from EU
      - rspeer 8y ago
        I cannot imagine being so enmeshed in the world of targeted advertising that I would care about this analogy.
        umvi 8y ago
        The point is, it's stealing to forego the targeted ads in order to consume the content anyway. The fair thing to do would be: "I don't consent to targeted ads, so I'm clicking the back button and using an alternative" Not: "I don't consent to targeted ads, so I'm opting out of them and by the way, you get to foot the bill for whatever I decide to do next"
        craigsmansion 8y ago
        You can use advertisements. You can even use targeted advertisements if you're halfway smart. What you can't use is targeted advertisement where the targeting is based on tracking. If your business model absolutely must resort to tracking users to be successful, it's probably best and easiest to withdraw from the EU market.
  - Spearchucker 8y ago
    Shouldn't I, the creator, be able to say "consent to having cookies or don't use my site?" No, especially not if you're a monolopoly like Facebook or Google. For non - monopolistic sites the GDPR encourages other monetization business models such as subscriptions instead of collecting and then profiling user data.
    - umvi 8y ago
      Facebook and Google are not monopolies. There are good and plentiful alternatives to both. At any rate, seems like GPDR punishes the freemium model which in turn punishes the poor. If I make my site subscription only then I either have to have the subscribers subsidize the free users, or bar non-paying users from my site...
      - Spearchucker 8y ago
        Or you might have the affluent subsidize the poor. Or come up with something entirely new. And they are monopolies in that between them they are advertising on the internet. Also using social media that is like a Facebook property in function but isn't Facebook places the user into a social media desert. Gmail in its domain is similar.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Some US newspaper do this, block EU access, What people criticize in this case is where the site does not block us EU citizen because they want to track us, so they kinda implement GDPR by using the worse UX possible that probably is illegal. If you want to say that they need the ads to function then they should not provide the convoluted way to decline tracking from 30+ trackers but just block us. What we want is put a big Decline button near the Accept button, or put the full list of trackers directly on the popup and not send me to a Privacy Policy or a settings/configuration page. But this sites want it all, they want the EU readers and also their data and user the bad UX to make you just accept. I just close the tab, I do not bother with workarounds.

Terretta 8y ago

The law pretty much rules out advertising as a valid reason, and that they can't discriminate on showing content based on opting out of the non-valid reasons (like ads).

umvi 8y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm interpreting this to mean that under GDPR users should be able to opt out of cookies and still view the content? That doesn't seem right. Shouldn't I, the creator, be able to say "consent to having cookies or don't use my site?"
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  That's a moral argument, not a legal argument. GDPR codifies through law that you are unable to, legally.
  - umvi 8y ago
    That makes about as much sense (to me) as: "Fill out this survey and you can have a candy bar" "Nope, I won't fill out the survey but I'll still take the candy bar"
    - Terretta 8y ago
      Fill out this survey, while I surreptitiously inject this GPS tracker under your skin, and you can have a candy bar. Don't mind you noting down I stopped by, or these product posters you have up, but I'd rather not have that embedded tracker, thanks. Don't track you? Already jabbed you, LOL... And so the law stepped in.
      - umvi 8y ago
        Yeah but now the law creates the opposite problem: Me: Let me serve you targeted ads and you can stream this video you want to watch, deal? You: Nope, I'm just going to stream your video without the ads, LOL Me: That's stealing my bandwidth You: Nope, the EU made it legal so it's not stealing, LOL Me: withdraws from EU
    - rspeer 8y ago
      I cannot imagine being so enmeshed in the world of targeted advertising that I would care about this analogy.
      - umvi 8y ago
        The point is, it's stealing to forego the targeted ads in order to consume the content anyway. The fair thing to do would be: "I don't consent to targeted ads, so I'm clicking the back button and using an alternative" Not: "I don't consent to targeted ads, so I'm opting out of them and by the way, you get to foot the bill for whatever I decide to do next"
        craigsmansion 8y ago
        You can use advertisements. You can even use targeted advertisements if you're halfway smart. What you can't use is targeted advertisement where the targeting is based on tracking. If your business model absolutely must resort to tracking users to be successful, it's probably best and easiest to withdraw from the EU market.
- Spearchucker 8y ago
  Shouldn't I, the creator, be able to say "consent to having cookies or don't use my site?" No, especially not if you're a monolopoly like Facebook or Google. For non - monopolistic sites the GDPR encourages other monetization business models such as subscriptions instead of collecting and then profiling user data.
  - umvi 8y ago
    Facebook and Google are not monopolies. There are good and plentiful alternatives to both. At any rate, seems like GPDR punishes the freemium model which in turn punishes the poor. If I make my site subscription only then I either have to have the subscribers subsidize the free users, or bar non-paying users from my site...
    - Spearchucker 8y ago
      Or you might have the affluent subsidize the poor. Or come up with something entirely new. And they are monopolies in that between them they are advertising on the internet. Also using social media that is like a Facebook property in function but isn't Facebook places the user into a social media desert. Gmail in its domain is similar.
- simion314 8y ago
  Some US newspaper do this, block EU access, What people criticize in this case is where the site does not block us EU citizen because they want to track us, so they kinda implement GDPR by using the worse UX possible that probably is illegal. If you want to say that they need the ads to function then they should not provide the convoluted way to decline tracking from 30+ trackers but just block us. What we want is put a big Decline button near the Accept button, or put the full list of trackers directly on the popup and not send me to a Privacy Policy or a settings/configuration page. But this sites want it all, they want the EU readers and also their data and user the bad UX to make you just accept. I just close the tab, I do not bother with workarounds.