4 ms·

The irony that I have to click through one of the ultra-shitty agree/learn more cookie popups just to read this article. Maybe if GHacks didn't comply with the

The irony that I have to click through one of the ultra-shitty agree/learn more cookie popups just to read this article. Maybe if GHacks didn't comply with the legislation in such a user hostile manner, browser developers wouldn't have to waste time on such features.

marcosdumay 4y ago
An outright dishonest cookie prompt, where "reject" or "manage choices" aren't even shown on the first screen. I imagine the company behind this site is hosted at the US. There are not many places one can still do this.
- sva_ 4y ago
  Most of the big German news sites require you to either accept ads, or pay for a subscription. It is sadly perfectly legal afaik. Nobody is entitled to your content without agreeing to some terms. Luckily, archive.is works very well. Wish there were more alternatives.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
    >It is sadly perfectly legal afaik. No it isn't.
  - solarkraft 4y ago
    I also read that it's legal, but can't see how it's in the spirit of the law.
    - guitarbill 4y ago
      Non-targeted ads are fine from a privacy perspective/GDPR
  - math_dandy 4y ago
    How do they make you accept ads? Do they sniff ad blockers or something? And is this “ads or pay” dichotomy related to cookie modals?
    - hannes0 4y ago
      Enter free: Accept ads. Don’t want ads? Buy pro. You basically cannot enter if you don’t agree or have payed. Example: https://t3n.de https://t3n.de
      - pwg 4y ago
        Interestingly, browsing to your example link with uBlock Origin blocking all javascript by default I get a page that looks like indexes to articles. Clicking on one gives me what appears to be the full article. As I can not read German, I pasted part of the text into google translate, and yes, it does appear to be the full article text. So for at least that site, it appears that all of the 'protection' is provided by javascript, and if one does not allow the javascript to execute, one receives the article content. There also does not look to be much in the way of ads with the javascript blocked as well.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    The site doesn't require that you accept the ads. It just uses dark patterns to make you accept tracking.
  - paddw 4y ago
    Horrible how people want to be compensated in some manner for their full time work...
    - Macacity 4y ago
      They could also show non-personalised ads, if that were their only goal
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
      Would be totally fine if they weren't indexed, linked and summarized in a way that makes them indistinguishable from open web pages, until you click on them.
      - meghan_rain 4y ago
        Makes me wonder if creating a plugin that makes your browser pretend to be the Google indexing bot would give you secret access to all paysites?
        jffry 4y ago
        Certainly at this point anybody serious about wanting to give Google special access through their paywall would allow based on the published IP blocks [1] and not an easily spoofed UA header [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/verifying-googlebot#use-automatic-solutions https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
        brookst 4y ago
        I remember the good old days when Google penalized sites for showing content to their crawler that wasn't available to normal users.
        jonas-w 4y ago
        https://12ft.io https://12ft.io works on some sites through pretending to be the google bot. You can also access any site in the google cache with prepending "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:", that will you show you the website like the google bot saw it. For example github.com would become "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%..." It is still worth to try, but many sites already prevent this.
  - unscaled 4y ago
    GDPR does not allow forcing you to get a consent by preventing you from using the service: "Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance." Since GDPR clearly does not consider ad-tracking cookies as "necessary for the performance of service", this should be against the spirit of the law. I guess it's up for the BfDI and relevant state-level commissioners to prosecute this and I don't know what is their stance, but this type of behavior does not seem compliant. Of course, there are many other types of non-compliant behavior. Most cookie banners out there make rejecting cookies harder than accepting, and there are many cookie walls that block you from accessing the site at all until you dismiss them. These are clearly non-compliant, but prevalent. Even oversized or disruptive banners that goad you to click "I Agree" in order to dismiss them, cannot be considered as "freely-given consent".
    - revelio 4y ago
      They aren't preventing you from using the service. You can consent to the cookies, or also choose to pay. Which of course requires an account, which requires a cookie, which is then tied to your payment details, and therefore far less private than ads, but that's GDPR for you. A nonsensical law in which nobody involved thought anything through.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    It's certainly legal to get you to accept advertising, or buy the service. What they can't do is say "no tracking, no service".
    - etherealG 4y ago
      I wish this were true. It’s not. Tracking can be seen as “legitimate interest” because the money earned from that is needed to run the service. If we could turn tracking I to a banned way to earn money from free visitors, I think we’d all be better off. This is not how gdpr works today.
      - Nursie 4y ago
        No, it cannot, that’s explicitly not what legitimate interest is about. If that’s the way it’s playing out in Germany then that’s sad, but that’s a problem with the national regulator. Other regulators are dropping the ball on enforcement so it doesn’t surprise me, but that is expressly not legitimate interest. Legitimate interest is things like a legal requirement to maintain PII because of the services offered.
  - mfru 4y ago
    In Austria, there is an ongoing legal case [0] about the pay-or-ads-model. At least the Austrian DPA seems to not totally be ok with it. [0]: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end
    - matteocontrini 4y ago
      In Italy the privacy authority is looking into it as well [0], but they also said that at first look the "cookie wall" is "in principle" not incompatible with the GDPR. [0]: https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9816536 https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/d...
seppel 4y ago
> Maybe if GHacks didn't comply with the legislation in such a user hostile manner, browser developers wouldn't have to waste time on such features. You need the same feature for visiting EU government websites: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ (best example) https://commission.europa.eu/ https://commission.europa.eu/ https://european-union.europa.eu/ https://european-union.europa.eu/
- tobr 4y ago
  These just require a single click to reject, unlike the one on ghacks.net.
- Deukhoofd 4y ago
  There's a major difference between a two button UI with a clear "I refuse cookies" screen, and a screen where you first need to click "Learn More", then manually toggle 5 toggles about what you don't want to allow, then click the greyed out "View our partners" button, then block all of those. The second one is definitely extremely user hostile.
skywal_l 4y ago
As it happens, GHacks cookie popup is defeated by NoScript. You might give it a try.
- rickstanley 4y ago
  Not OP. I've been using NoScript until today, works as expected of course, but the hassle to have to enable specific scripts to make a useful website work outweighs its usefulness for me. There's "NoJS", a extension where you can enable all JS through a switch, but it doesn't handle iframes very well at the moment.
  - dp-hackernews 4y ago
    Use uMatrix by uBlockOrigin author - now deprecated, but still useful
    - pwg 4y ago
      Or the maintained uBlockOrigin, in "I am an advanced user" mode where you get /almost/ a umatrix level ability to selectively enable bits and pieces.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > but the hassle to have to enable specific scripts to make a useful website work You only have to do this once per website, so (unless you've already uninstalled it) you've already done the hard work time investment for the sites you visit most often.
bombolo 4y ago
It's actually illegal, reject should be as fast as accept.
swapfile 4y ago
This is why I browse the internet with scripts disabled. I don't see a popup of any sort.
lbotos 4y ago
Aside: I can't remember what site I was on recently, but I saw the craziest cookie prompt. The options were: Basic / Premium / Ultra With you guessed it, Ultra being the most tracking cookies. I was flabbergasted.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  Ultimate tracking experience
- thedailymail 4y ago
  Congratulations on being selected to enjoy the Diamond Elite Tier sponsor engagement experience!
- tux3 4y ago
  They should make Ultra have a limited time countdown, to stress people into FOMOclicking. But of course, for maximum trap potential, we need to find a wording such that Premium is the option without, while Ultra tracking and Basic tracking should both do roughly the same amount of tracking (modulo not really relevant details). With a sufficiently discouraging wall of text, a bad UX, and a limited time option, no one would spend the time to figure out they need to click the middle option. (This tweet brought to you by our sponsor, Moloch.)
  - brookst 4y ago
    Might as well charge $0.99/year for Ultra too.
  - dcow 4y ago
    You’re hired!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jokethrowaway 4y ago
nope, any cookie banner is pure cancer I don't even care about all the dark patterns of now allowing you to dismiss and ignore with one click. Thank you Europe
- solarkraft 4y ago
  > nope, any cookie banner is pure cancer I agree, sites shouldn't be doing the things that require showing one. > I don't even care about all the dark patterns of now allowing you to dismiss and ignore with one click. How is this a dark pattern? > Thank you Europe Indeed! If such tracking has to be allowed, I'm happy that at least I can opt out of it.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    > I agree, sites shouldn't be doing the things that require showing one Like what, showing ads? Collecting payment from the user in leiu of ads? I wonder what website you're imagining that doesn't do something that requires a cookie consent popup. GeoCities, maybe?
    - roelschroeven 4y ago
      It's perfectly possible to show ads without collecting data about your users; printed publications have done it for ages. Currently the big players are very heavily pushing for a model with ridiculous levels of user tracking (to the point that many people believe ads and user tracking are inseparably connected), but that doesn't mean it's the only possible model.
      - revelio 4y ago
        Print publications give their advertisers detailed demographic data collected via surveys and other techniques. The idea they don't collect data about their readers is wrong.
    - Moldoteck 4y ago
      Tracking is needed for relevant ads. No tracking means you still get ads, just not relevant to your interests
JohnMakin 4y ago
Came here to post this. This is a pretty malicious pattern.
- aziaziazi 4y ago
  And there is even worse : sometimes the “partner” list does not have a reject all AND each partner requires a two click steps - waiting for an animation in between. Edit: remove double post of link
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 4y ago
These days, this just makes me immediately click Reader Mode.
subarctic 4y ago
Honestly for the first 10 seconds after I clicked the link, I thought the banner must be a joke because the irony is just too perfect

marcosdumay 4y ago

An outright dishonest cookie prompt, where "reject" or "manage choices" aren't even shown on the first screen. I imagine the company behind this site is hosted at the US. There are not many places one can still do this.

sva_ 4y ago
Most of the big German news sites require you to either accept ads, or pay for a subscription. It is sadly perfectly legal afaik. Nobody is entitled to your content without agreeing to some terms. Luckily, archive.is works very well. Wish there were more alternatives.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  >It is sadly perfectly legal afaik. No it isn't.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  I also read that it's legal, but can't see how it's in the spirit of the law.
  - guitarbill 4y ago
    Non-targeted ads are fine from a privacy perspective/GDPR
- math_dandy 4y ago
  How do they make you accept ads? Do they sniff ad blockers or something? And is this “ads or pay” dichotomy related to cookie modals?
  - hannes0 4y ago
    Enter free: Accept ads. Don’t want ads? Buy pro. You basically cannot enter if you don’t agree or have payed. Example: https://t3n.de https://t3n.de
    - pwg 4y ago
      Interestingly, browsing to your example link with uBlock Origin blocking all javascript by default I get a page that looks like indexes to articles. Clicking on one gives me what appears to be the full article. As I can not read German, I pasted part of the text into google translate, and yes, it does appear to be the full article text. So for at least that site, it appears that all of the 'protection' is provided by javascript, and if one does not allow the javascript to execute, one receives the article content. There also does not look to be much in the way of ads with the javascript blocked as well.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  The site doesn't require that you accept the ads. It just uses dark patterns to make you accept tracking.
- paddw 4y ago
  Horrible how people want to be compensated in some manner for their full time work...
  - Macacity 4y ago
    They could also show non-personalised ads, if that were their only goal
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    Would be totally fine if they weren't indexed, linked and summarized in a way that makes them indistinguishable from open web pages, until you click on them.
    - meghan_rain 4y ago
      Makes me wonder if creating a plugin that makes your browser pretend to be the Google indexing bot would give you secret access to all paysites?
      - jffry 4y ago
        Certainly at this point anybody serious about wanting to give Google special access through their paywall would allow based on the published IP blocks [1] and not an easily spoofed UA header [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/verifying-googlebot#use-automatic-solutions https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
        brookst 4y ago
        I remember the good old days when Google penalized sites for showing content to their crawler that wasn't available to normal users.
      - jonas-w 4y ago
        https://12ft.io https://12ft.io works on some sites through pretending to be the google bot. You can also access any site in the google cache with prepending "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:", that will you show you the website like the google bot saw it. For example github.com would become "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%..." It is still worth to try, but many sites already prevent this.
- unscaled 4y ago
  GDPR does not allow forcing you to get a consent by preventing you from using the service: "Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance." Since GDPR clearly does not consider ad-tracking cookies as "necessary for the performance of service", this should be against the spirit of the law. I guess it's up for the BfDI and relevant state-level commissioners to prosecute this and I don't know what is their stance, but this type of behavior does not seem compliant. Of course, there are many other types of non-compliant behavior. Most cookie banners out there make rejecting cookies harder than accepting, and there are many cookie walls that block you from accessing the site at all until you dismiss them. These are clearly non-compliant, but prevalent. Even oversized or disruptive banners that goad you to click "I Agree" in order to dismiss them, cannot be considered as "freely-given consent".
  - revelio 4y ago
    They aren't preventing you from using the service. You can consent to the cookies, or also choose to pay. Which of course requires an account, which requires a cookie, which is then tied to your payment details, and therefore far less private than ads, but that's GDPR for you. A nonsensical law in which nobody involved thought anything through.
- Nursie 4y ago
  It's certainly legal to get you to accept advertising, or buy the service. What they can't do is say "no tracking, no service".
  - etherealG 4y ago
    I wish this were true. It’s not. Tracking can be seen as “legitimate interest” because the money earned from that is needed to run the service. If we could turn tracking I to a banned way to earn money from free visitors, I think we’d all be better off. This is not how gdpr works today.
    - Nursie 4y ago
      No, it cannot, that’s explicitly not what legitimate interest is about. If that’s the way it’s playing out in Germany then that’s sad, but that’s a problem with the national regulator. Other regulators are dropping the ball on enforcement so it doesn’t surprise me, but that is expressly not legitimate interest. Legitimate interest is things like a legal requirement to maintain PII because of the services offered.
- mfru 4y ago
  In Austria, there is an ongoing legal case [0] about the pay-or-ads-model. At least the Austrian DPA seems to not totally be ok with it. [0]: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end
  - matteocontrini 4y ago
    In Italy the privacy authority is looking into it as well [0], but they also said that at first look the "cookie wall" is "in principle" not incompatible with the GDPR. [0]: https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9816536 https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/d...

seppel 4y ago

> Maybe if GHacks didn't comply with the legislation in such a user hostile manner, browser developers wouldn't have to waste time on such features. You need the same feature for visiting EU government websites: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ (best example) https://commission.europa.eu/ https://commission.europa.eu/ https://european-union.europa.eu/ https://european-union.europa.eu/

tobr 4y ago
These just require a single click to reject, unlike the one on ghacks.net.
Deukhoofd 4y ago
There's a major difference between a two button UI with a clear "I refuse cookies" screen, and a screen where you first need to click "Learn More", then manually toggle 5 toggles about what you don't want to allow, then click the greyed out "View our partners" button, then block all of those. The second one is definitely extremely user hostile.

skywal_l 4y ago

As it happens, GHacks cookie popup is defeated by NoScript. You might give it a try.

rickstanley 4y ago
Not OP. I've been using NoScript until today, works as expected of course, but the hassle to have to enable specific scripts to make a useful website work outweighs its usefulness for me. There's "NoJS", a extension where you can enable all JS through a switch, but it doesn't handle iframes very well at the moment.
- dp-hackernews 4y ago
  Use uMatrix by uBlockOrigin author - now deprecated, but still useful
  - pwg 4y ago
    Or the maintained uBlockOrigin, in "I am an advanced user" mode where you get /almost/ a umatrix level ability to selectively enable bits and pieces.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > but the hassle to have to enable specific scripts to make a useful website work You only have to do this once per website, so (unless you've already uninstalled it) you've already done the hard work time investment for the sites you visit most often.

bombolo 4y ago

It's actually illegal, reject should be as fast as accept.

swapfile 4y ago

This is why I browse the internet with scripts disabled. I don't see a popup of any sort.

lbotos 4y ago

Aside: I can't remember what site I was on recently, but I saw the craziest cookie prompt. The options were: Basic / Premium / Ultra With you guessed it, Ultra being the most tracking cookies. I was flabbergasted.

solarkraft 4y ago
Ultimate tracking experience
thedailymail 4y ago
Congratulations on being selected to enjoy the Diamond Elite Tier sponsor engagement experience!
tux3 4y ago
They should make Ultra have a limited time countdown, to stress people into FOMOclicking. But of course, for maximum trap potential, we need to find a wording such that Premium is the option without, while Ultra tracking and Basic tracking should both do roughly the same amount of tracking (modulo not really relevant details). With a sufficiently discouraging wall of text, a bad UX, and a limited time option, no one would spend the time to figure out they need to click the middle option. (This tweet brought to you by our sponsor, Moloch.)
- brookst 4y ago
  Might as well charge $0.99/year for Ultra too.
- dcow 4y ago
  You’re hired!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jokethrowaway 4y ago

nope, any cookie banner is pure cancer I don't even care about all the dark patterns of now allowing you to dismiss and ignore with one click. Thank you Europe

solarkraft 4y ago
> nope, any cookie banner is pure cancer I agree, sites shouldn't be doing the things that require showing one. > I don't even care about all the dark patterns of now allowing you to dismiss and ignore with one click. How is this a dark pattern? > Thank you Europe Indeed! If such tracking has to be allowed, I'm happy that at least I can opt out of it.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  > I agree, sites shouldn't be doing the things that require showing one Like what, showing ads? Collecting payment from the user in leiu of ads? I wonder what website you're imagining that doesn't do something that requires a cookie consent popup. GeoCities, maybe?
  - roelschroeven 4y ago
    It's perfectly possible to show ads without collecting data about your users; printed publications have done it for ages. Currently the big players are very heavily pushing for a model with ridiculous levels of user tracking (to the point that many people believe ads and user tracking are inseparably connected), but that doesn't mean it's the only possible model.
    - revelio 4y ago
      Print publications give their advertisers detailed demographic data collected via surveys and other techniques. The idea they don't collect data about their readers is wrong.
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    Tracking is needed for relevant ads. No tracking means you still get ads, just not relevant to your interests

JohnMakin 4y ago

Came here to post this. This is a pretty malicious pattern.

aziaziazi 4y ago
And there is even worse : sometimes the “partner” list does not have a reject all AND each partner requires a two click steps - waiting for an animation in between. Edit: remove double post of link

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BlueTemplar 4y ago

These days, this just makes me immediately click Reader Mode.

subarctic 4y ago

Honestly for the first 10 seconds after I clicked the link, I thought the banner must be a joke because the irony is just too perfect