3 ms·
Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary t
by jfk13 8y ago
Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand).
If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
- dngray 8y agoMy point is that if you don't allow, the two requests, the page still loads and you don't have to answer any questions. www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmp.js 3p www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmpStub.min.js 3p > Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. Sadly that's the world we live in. > It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). It shouldn't yet, it does . > If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic. With media that's a pretty safe assumption.