4 ms·

I don't know how WaPo does this, but all newspapers I've tried including NYT and The Guardian and The Economist have a lot of tracking in their apps even for su

by blub 8y ago

I don't know how WaPo does this, but all newspapers I've tried including NYT and The Guardian and The Economist have a lot of tracking in their apps even for subscribers. So it's a crap deal.

bscphil 8y ago
Yep, this is what really makes me mad. You can't argue that alternatives to tracking don't exist when no one is actually trying the alternatives. You can't choose between paying and getting tracked; it's get tracked regardless and hear them nag you to pay them for the privilege.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Living billboard here: While ars technica is not a newspaper they often have posts that some of us find interesting. They turn off ads and tracking for all but the lowest tiers.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  > You can't choose between paying and getting tracked […] Well, you can of course pay and use an ad-blocker. I have a subscription to a Dutch newspaper (on actual paper even), and use their site as well, but not without protection. The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership. But whenever I use a clean browser profile to verify some piece of behavior in a website, or to see if a bug on it was caused by the use of uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger, I am acutely reminded why I choose to shield my brain from the repetitive onslaught of internet advertisements with all their tracking and insulting attempts at trying to put me into a specific profile. I don't mind internet advertisements as such though. There is a certain social media site that starts with an F but is not Facebook (and quite empathically and by design the opposite in terms of prudishness) which serves ads that are vetted by the website's advertising department, and are shown to users at random without the option of narrowing the reach to users with specific interests or demographics. These have never bothered me, and sometimes even serve to introduce me to a business that sells products I am interested in. Like my paper newspaper, advertisers only know the general profile of the site's members. More sites should consider that option. No tracking, no tailoring beyond 'people that visit our website', and vetted by the site itself. Newspapers in particular have the knowledge of how to acquisition advertisers for this; they already do it in their paper editions.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Well, you can of course pay and use an ad-blocker. But why pay if they're still being tracked? The value proposition here is off. Might as well not pay and use an ad blocker.
  - vslira 8y ago
    >The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership. Now I feel stupid. For all the doom and gloom about the impossibility about paying to not getting tracked and how Chinese and American spy agencies and Megacorps know everything about your online behavior, I never thought about simply returning to consumption of analog content as a reaction. Well, it's more expensive and worse for the environment, but I guess if you really value privacy that's bearable
rusk 8y ago
I would say especially for subscribers. For an advertiser it’s those who can pay that are the most interesting.
Shacklz 8y ago
As much as I like the NYT for its journalism, they cannot even stop from advertising their subscription service even though I'm already a subscriber...
Symbiote 8y ago
When I visit washingtonpost.com from the EU, I see a page giving me three options: > Free > Read a limited number of articles each month > You consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us and third parties to provide you with personalized ads > Basic Subscription > > $6 every 4 weeks or just $78 $60/year > ... > You consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us and third parties to provide you with personalized ads > Premium EU Ad-Free Subscription > > $9 every 4 weeks or just $117 $90/year > ... > No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking (That last line is bold on the page.) I don't know if this approach is fully compliant with the letter and spirit of the GDPR. The page itself contains three trackers, according to Ghostery, and has set several long-lived cookies without any interaction.

by blub 8y ago

I don't know how WaPo does this, but all newspapers I've tried including NYT and The Guardian and The Economist have a lot of tracking in their apps even for subscribers. So it's a crap deal.

bscphil 8y ago

Yep, this is what really makes me mad. You can't argue that alternatives to tracking don't exist when no one is actually trying the alternatives. You can't choose between paying and getting tracked; it's get tracked regardless and hear them nag you to pay them for the privilege.

reitanqild 8y ago
Living billboard here: While ars technica is not a newspaper they often have posts that some of us find interesting. They turn off ads and tracking for all but the lowest tiers.
Freak_NL 8y ago
> You can't choose between paying and getting tracked […] Well, you can of course pay and use an ad-blocker. I have a subscription to a Dutch newspaper (on actual paper even), and use their site as well, but not without protection. The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership. But whenever I use a clean browser profile to verify some piece of behavior in a website, or to see if a bug on it was caused by the use of uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger, I am acutely reminded why I choose to shield my brain from the repetitive onslaught of internet advertisements with all their tracking and insulting attempts at trying to put me into a specific profile. I don't mind internet advertisements as such though. There is a certain social media site that starts with an F but is not Facebook (and quite empathically and by design the opposite in terms of prudishness) which serves ads that are vetted by the website's advertising department, and are shown to users at random without the option of narrowing the reach to users with specific interests or demographics. These have never bothered me, and sometimes even serve to introduce me to a business that sells products I am interested in. Like my paper newspaper, advertisers only know the general profile of the site's members. More sites should consider that option. No tracking, no tailoring beyond 'people that visit our website', and vetted by the site itself. Newspapers in particular have the knowledge of how to acquisition advertisers for this; they already do it in their paper editions.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Well, you can of course pay and use an ad-blocker. But why pay if they're still being tracked? The value proposition here is off. Might as well not pay and use an ad blocker.
- vslira 8y ago
  >The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership. Now I feel stupid. For all the doom and gloom about the impossibility about paying to not getting tracked and how Chinese and American spy agencies and Megacorps know everything about your online behavior, I never thought about simply returning to consumption of analog content as a reaction. Well, it's more expensive and worse for the environment, but I guess if you really value privacy that's bearable

rusk 8y ago

I would say especially for subscribers. For an advertiser it’s those who can pay that are the most interesting.

Shacklz 8y ago

As much as I like the NYT for its journalism, they cannot even stop from advertising their subscription service even though I'm already a subscriber...

Symbiote 8y ago

When I visit washingtonpost.com from the EU, I see a page giving me three options: > Free > Read a limited number of articles each month > You consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us and third parties to provide you with personalized ads > Basic Subscription > > $6 every 4 weeks or just $78 $60/year > ... > You consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us and third parties to provide you with personalized ads > Premium EU Ad-Free Subscription > > $9 every 4 weeks or just $117 $90/year > ... > No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking (That last line is bold on the page.) I don't know if this approach is fully compliant with the letter and spirit of the GDPR. The page itself contains three trackers, according to Ghostery, and has set several long-lived cookies without any interaction.