4 ms·

"NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhan

"NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic. This information is shared with social media, sponsorship, analytics, and other vendors or service providers" By the way, there is no 'reject' option for npr.org, just 'Agree and Continue'. I'm not sure whether there's a difference between this and what they're reporting on, but I wasn't willing to accept to find out.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
If you’re worried about cookies, you could open the page in a private browsing mode. Cookies will not be saved between browsing sessions regardless of what you agree to.
- wgj 5y ago
  Though some news sites detect private mode and block the article. NYT for example.
- belorn 5y ago
  No one is worried about cookies, as they are just one and zeros on a computer. It is the personal information being shared with sponsors, social media, analytics, and other vendors or what ever they feel is offering them enough money. The reason we are in this privacy hell is the confusion between technology, ie cookies, and personal information, ie sensitive information about people and their lives that get traded like commodity goods. It is how technology is used that matters.
- Tarq0n 5y ago
  The cookie is just an implementation detail. Agreeing to the terms of the average cookie wall will let the website in question capture your IP address and browser fingerprint and then sell on that information for combination with other data sources.
- dspillett 5y ago
  There are many finger-printing and tracking methods of which cookies is but one. A couple of them can effectively “break” the private/incognito barrier (perhaps with less accuracy and/or precision, but given enough data-points discrepancies can be averaged out).
classified 5y ago
This surveillance economy stuff should really be illegal.
- 87er43 5y ago
  And who will take a stand against surveillance and data trafficking... the government?
elicash 5y ago
I didn't listen to the 14-minute story, either, just read the article that had very limited information -- but certainly one major difference is storage of personal health data. The closest NPR gets to that is whether you read, say, an article like "COVID vaccines may briefly change your menstrual cycle, but you should still get one." If you're implying hypocrisy, I don't think it exists here. News companies sharing data with advertisers (so, nearly all of them) should absolutely be reporting on this issue. If I got/tracked periods, this is information I would want to know.
bwestergard 5y ago
You may be interested in http://text.npr.org http://text.npr.org
- Vrondi 5y ago
  Bless you! This is superb.
- donkeydoug 5y ago
  that's awesome, I wish more sites offered a slimmed down txt-centric version. if they added a minimal search it'd make it a lot more functional. as is, needed to clip the story number from the orig url to find it there: https://text.npr.org/1068930998 https://text.npr.org/1068930998
  - mabub24 5y ago
    CNN also has the lite version: http://lite.cnn.com/en http://lite.cnn.com/en
  - cpv 5y ago
    github repo with small lite websites https://github.com/mdibaiee/awesome-lite-websites https://github.com/mdibaiee/awesome-lite-websites
    - donkeydoug 5y ago
      nice! Thanks :)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dspillett 5y ago
If you click the “your choices” button it takes you to the nothing-but-the-text version of the current article, which is usually far preferable anyway. In this case that is https://text.npr.org/1068930998 https://text.npr.org/1068930998 Not making it say “disagree” or “reject” seems a bit dark-pattern-y, and making a button captioned “your choices” dump you straight at the leave-it side of take-it-or- make it seem like a snarky punishment for even daring to prefer not to be stalked online, but at least the option exists.
cronix 5y ago
I just hit "reader view" in firefox (icon next to search bar) and all that crap goes away leaving just the article text and images.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

If you’re worried about cookies, you could open the page in a private browsing mode. Cookies will not be saved between browsing sessions regardless of what you agree to.

wgj 5y ago
Though some news sites detect private mode and block the article. NYT for example.
belorn 5y ago
No one is worried about cookies, as they are just one and zeros on a computer. It is the personal information being shared with sponsors, social media, analytics, and other vendors or what ever they feel is offering them enough money. The reason we are in this privacy hell is the confusion between technology, ie cookies, and personal information, ie sensitive information about people and their lives that get traded like commodity goods. It is how technology is used that matters.
Tarq0n 5y ago
The cookie is just an implementation detail. Agreeing to the terms of the average cookie wall will let the website in question capture your IP address and browser fingerprint and then sell on that information for combination with other data sources.
dspillett 5y ago
There are many finger-printing and tracking methods of which cookies is but one. A couple of them can effectively “break” the private/incognito barrier (perhaps with less accuracy and/or precision, but given enough data-points discrepancies can be averaged out).

classified 5y ago

This surveillance economy stuff should really be illegal.

87er43 5y ago
And who will take a stand against surveillance and data trafficking... the government?

elicash 5y ago

I didn't listen to the 14-minute story, either, just read the article that had very limited information -- but certainly one major difference is storage of personal health data. The closest NPR gets to that is whether you read, say, an article like "COVID vaccines may briefly change your menstrual cycle, but you should still get one." If you're implying hypocrisy, I don't think it exists here. News companies sharing data with advertisers (so, nearly all of them) should absolutely be reporting on this issue. If I got/tracked periods, this is information I would want to know.

bwestergard 5y ago

You may be interested in http://text.npr.org http://text.npr.org

Vrondi 5y ago
Bless you! This is superb.
donkeydoug 5y ago
that's awesome, I wish more sites offered a slimmed down txt-centric version. if they added a minimal search it'd make it a lot more functional. as is, needed to clip the story number from the orig url to find it there: https://text.npr.org/1068930998 https://text.npr.org/1068930998
- mabub24 5y ago
  CNN also has the lite version: http://lite.cnn.com/en http://lite.cnn.com/en
- cpv 5y ago
  github repo with small lite websites https://github.com/mdibaiee/awesome-lite-websites https://github.com/mdibaiee/awesome-lite-websites
  - donkeydoug 5y ago
    nice! Thanks :)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dspillett 5y ago

If you click the “your choices” button it takes you to the nothing-but-the-text version of the current article, which is usually far preferable anyway. In this case that is https://text.npr.org/1068930998 https://text.npr.org/1068930998 Not making it say “disagree” or “reject” seems a bit dark-pattern-y, and making a button captioned “your choices” dump you straight at the leave-it side of take-it-or- make it seem like a snarky punishment for even daring to prefer not to be stalked online, but at least the option exists.

cronix 5y ago

I just hit "reader view" in firefox (icon next to search bar) and all that crap goes away leaving just the article text and images.