7 ms·

Wow. Try to opt out of their data tracking, an option they're required to add. "This may take up to a few minutes to process" They make you wait at this long

Wow. Try to opt out of their data tracking, an option they're required to add. "This may take up to a few minutes to process" They make you wait at this long ass loading screen while they "process" your request not to have cookies. Here's the outline for people who don't want to wait minutes to read an article. https://outline.com/TZSBv4 https://outline.com/TZSBv4

giarc 7y ago
I was going to screenshot that page. A small auto play video in bottom left corner, a top bar pop up to get the "latest updates from Forbes", an email sign up for the Forbes Daily Dozen and in the background, blurred out is the article.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  I envision a distributed system that simply renders pages, clicks "agree" or whatever, and uploads just the content to "archive" servers automatically. After a critical mass is reached, then instead of going to the URL, you plug the URL into archive server to see if it already has a copy and render that version. From there, you could go even further and daily download 100mb or so of pre-sanitized internet from the most likely pages you currently visit. Not only would you elide ads, but your page render times would drop to milliseconds and save money on mobile bandwith. This system could be powered by kind volunteers who manually click away the ads and publish their renderings either as images or HTML-1.0 with all shit-ware removed. They could also be paid through micropayments to workers in developing nations. If everyone "tipped" a buck or two per month into a pool that paid work-at-home scavengers to curtail content for us, we would be supporting a real business model while not being harassed and tracked. Alternatively, you could have AI-powered crawlers that are trained to close videos, identify article text and relevant pictures, and ignore ad banners.
  - sp332 7y ago
    If you have Firefox, Edge, or Safari, you can use Readability Mode to strip just the article text and read it. For something more complex like what you described, check out Brave. It blocks ads from tracking ad networks and either replaces them with non-tracking ads or lets you pay the site author directly.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The one thing that approach would guarantee is that archive servers would end up getting the business end of the stick.
enriquto 7y ago
If you disable javascript you can read it easily (and much faster, and without ads).
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  This is the best way to browse most of the so-called news sites.
latexr 7y ago
Disable Javascript on the page, and you can read it without a problem.
enlyth 7y ago
It gets stuck for a minute or two on 100%, then says that some trackers cannot use https and makes you click another link to finish the process. I wonder why these dark patterns are still acceptable on the web. I thought opting-out was supposed to be as easy as opting-in according to the GDPR? The vast majority of sites I see make opting-out a very difficult process, usually hidden behind a tiny grey span of text, while the opt-in is a giant green, frictionless button with immediate effect. Usually there is misleading title like "We value your privacy", and a giant green accept button making you think you're agreeing with that statement. Then a tiny "Other options" in grey somewhere at the bottom which makes you go through sixteen confusing modal dialogs.
- iainmerrick 7y ago
  I wonder why these dark patterns are still acceptable on the web. I thought opting-out was supposed to be as easy as opting-in according to the GDPR? Yes, that’s the idea, but who’s going to enforce it? The dark patterns trick most people into doing what they want. A small number of technically-savvy users may complain, but we have little leverage.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > Yes, that’s the idea, but who’s going to enforce it? In theory, people are supposed to be suing the companies that do this, right?
LeonM 7y ago
I discussed this recently here on HN [0], the fake spinner is a dark-UI to 'punish' you for opting out. If you just accept the popup disappears immediately. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381
- pdpi 7y ago
  I don't think that's actually true. Rather, it's an architectural thing — because all these ad systems were designed without consent in mind, accepting is a no-op, whereas refusing consent requires an outbound request to set some sort of "do not track" flag somewhere (presumably as a cookie).
  - noja 7y ago
    Why do you think it's not true?
    - pdpi 7y ago
      Starting from Hanlon's razor, you assume incompetence is likelier than malice. Saving the "do not track" preference as a cookie is the most obvious way to distinguish new visitors with no cookie from users who have opted-out, but this means issuing a request to each and every ad network to store a cookie with them. Indeed, a quick look at Chrome's network tab reveals that they are, indeed, making a bazillion requests that is consistent with that explanation.
      - Rooster61 7y ago
        I apply Hanlon's razor to individuals, not collective entities such as a company or agency. The behavior in recent history of such entities I think warrants the exception to the rule.
        pdpi 7y ago
        It’s a heuristic that gives you a good starting point, not some sort of law. As it stands, it’s a starting point that’s easy to back with data suggesting it is indeed the case. If you can point me towards evidence that malice is indeed the case here, I’ll willingly change my mind.
tomp 7y ago
Whenever I get a spinner after clicking "Decline", I just reload the page. Often, it works. Presumable, it sets the cookie on the page ("user accepted/rejected the cookies") before setting the cookies on partner pages...
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  I used to do that too, thinking there was some kind of bug. And then one day I got distracted by my toddler while rejecting and it turned out that yes, a few minutes later, the thing disappeared. So now I'm tempted to assume that if you don't wait then nothing guarantees that the partners got the message that you're not accepting their tracking. The only dark pattern in there, presumably, is that they're notifying partners serially rather than in parallel.
dessant 7y ago
That's grounds for a GDPR complaint against TRUSTe and Forbes. Opting in or out must not be a condition for accessing content, so a popup that covers the page is problematic. Opting out should also be as simple as opting in, not a maze of options with progress spinners. File a complaint folks.
- magashna 7y ago
  Unless they geo-block GDPR countries and call it a day
  - dessant 7y ago
    They do not block EU countries at the moment. It's up to them to react badly, but we must still call out their behavior.
  - Nursie 7y ago
    I'd be ok with this in most cases. Other companies will serve those countries, if it's still profitable to do so. If not - oh well.
Krasnol 7y ago
I was actually surprised that it went all the way through to 100% and did something. Usually those things break down at some point.
m_rn 7y ago
PIA VPN "mace" seems to be saving me from all the torture.

giarc 7y ago

I was going to screenshot that page. A small auto play video in bottom left corner, a top bar pop up to get the "latest updates from Forbes", an email sign up for the Forbes Daily Dozen and in the background, blurred out is the article.

JudgeWapner 7y ago
I envision a distributed system that simply renders pages, clicks "agree" or whatever, and uploads just the content to "archive" servers automatically. After a critical mass is reached, then instead of going to the URL, you plug the URL into archive server to see if it already has a copy and render that version. From there, you could go even further and daily download 100mb or so of pre-sanitized internet from the most likely pages you currently visit. Not only would you elide ads, but your page render times would drop to milliseconds and save money on mobile bandwith. This system could be powered by kind volunteers who manually click away the ads and publish their renderings either as images or HTML-1.0 with all shit-ware removed. They could also be paid through micropayments to workers in developing nations. If everyone "tipped" a buck or two per month into a pool that paid work-at-home scavengers to curtail content for us, we would be supporting a real business model while not being harassed and tracked. Alternatively, you could have AI-powered crawlers that are trained to close videos, identify article text and relevant pictures, and ignore ad banners.
- sp332 7y ago
  If you have Firefox, Edge, or Safari, you can use Readability Mode to strip just the article text and read it. For something more complex like what you described, check out Brave. It blocks ads from tracking ad networks and either replaces them with non-tracking ads or lets you pay the site author directly.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The one thing that approach would guarantee is that archive servers would end up getting the business end of the stick.

enriquto 7y ago

If you disable javascript you can read it easily (and much faster, and without ads).

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
This is the best way to browse most of the so-called news sites.

latexr 7y ago

Disable Javascript on the page, and you can read it without a problem.

enlyth 7y ago

It gets stuck for a minute or two on 100%, then says that some trackers cannot use https and makes you click another link to finish the process. I wonder why these dark patterns are still acceptable on the web. I thought opting-out was supposed to be as easy as opting-in according to the GDPR? The vast majority of sites I see make opting-out a very difficult process, usually hidden behind a tiny grey span of text, while the opt-in is a giant green, frictionless button with immediate effect. Usually there is misleading title like "We value your privacy", and a giant green accept button making you think you're agreeing with that statement. Then a tiny "Other options" in grey somewhere at the bottom which makes you go through sixteen confusing modal dialogs.

iainmerrick 7y ago
I wonder why these dark patterns are still acceptable on the web. I thought opting-out was supposed to be as easy as opting-in according to the GDPR? Yes, that’s the idea, but who’s going to enforce it? The dark patterns trick most people into doing what they want. A small number of technically-savvy users may complain, but we have little leverage.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Yes, that’s the idea, but who’s going to enforce it? In theory, people are supposed to be suing the companies that do this, right?

LeonM 7y ago

I discussed this recently here on HN [0], the fake spinner is a dark-UI to 'punish' you for opting out. If you just accept the popup disappears immediately. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381

pdpi 7y ago
I don't think that's actually true. Rather, it's an architectural thing — because all these ad systems were designed without consent in mind, accepting is a no-op, whereas refusing consent requires an outbound request to set some sort of "do not track" flag somewhere (presumably as a cookie).
- noja 7y ago
  Why do you think it's not true?
  - pdpi 7y ago
    Starting from Hanlon's razor, you assume incompetence is likelier than malice. Saving the "do not track" preference as a cookie is the most obvious way to distinguish new visitors with no cookie from users who have opted-out, but this means issuing a request to each and every ad network to store a cookie with them. Indeed, a quick look at Chrome's network tab reveals that they are, indeed, making a bazillion requests that is consistent with that explanation.
    - Rooster61 7y ago
      I apply Hanlon's razor to individuals, not collective entities such as a company or agency. The behavior in recent history of such entities I think warrants the exception to the rule.
      - pdpi 7y ago
        It’s a heuristic that gives you a good starting point, not some sort of law. As it stands, it’s a starting point that’s easy to back with data suggesting it is indeed the case. If you can point me towards evidence that malice is indeed the case here, I’ll willingly change my mind.

tomp 7y ago

Whenever I get a spinner after clicking "Decline", I just reload the page. Often, it works. Presumable, it sets the cookie on the page ("user accepted/rejected the cookies") before setting the cookies on partner pages...

ddebernardy 7y ago
I used to do that too, thinking there was some kind of bug. And then one day I got distracted by my toddler while rejecting and it turned out that yes, a few minutes later, the thing disappeared. So now I'm tempted to assume that if you don't wait then nothing guarantees that the partners got the message that you're not accepting their tracking. The only dark pattern in there, presumably, is that they're notifying partners serially rather than in parallel.

dessant 7y ago

That's grounds for a GDPR complaint against TRUSTe and Forbes. Opting in or out must not be a condition for accessing content, so a popup that covers the page is problematic. Opting out should also be as simple as opting in, not a maze of options with progress spinners. File a complaint folks.

magashna 7y ago
Unless they geo-block GDPR countries and call it a day
- dessant 7y ago
  They do not block EU countries at the moment. It's up to them to react badly, but we must still call out their behavior.
- Nursie 7y ago
  I'd be ok with this in most cases. Other companies will serve those countries, if it's still profitable to do so. If not - oh well.

Krasnol 7y ago

I was actually surprised that it went all the way through to 100% and did something. Usually those things break down at some point.

m_rn 7y ago

PIA VPN "mace" seems to be saving me from all the torture.