3 ms·
If anyone from the New York Times is reading, I'm about to cancel my subscription. Despite being a paying subscriber the site insists on serving me a cookie b
by jimnotgym 3y ago
If anyone from the New York Times is reading, I'm about to cancel my subscription. Despite being a paying subscriber the site insists on serving me a cookie banner and a 'read in the app' overlay after I started reading. Don't interrupt my tiny amount of Fxxking reading time. You ruin the whole experience
- InCityDreams 3y agoIf anyone from the New York Times is reading, the last bit was "Don't interrupt my tiny amount of Fucking reading time. You ruin the whole experience." "Fucking", in case you're not fucking literate.
- jimnotgym 3y agoSorry, what was the point you were making?
- phendrenad2 3y agoTo be fair, you can blame the cookie banner on the EU and California. If the laws were actually grounded in reality maybe they could skip the banner for paying customers who are logged-in (and therefore have already accepted cookies). However, because the laws are dumb, the website has to worry that someone is letting their friend read the website on their PC, in which case they had better show a banner! Every time! Just in case!
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y agoAt least in the EU, the cookie banners aren't mandatory. They're required only if you want to set cookies that aren't necessary, or collect data that isn't necessary.
- phendrenad2 3y agoTechnically, the only required data is 'GET / HTTP/1.0', so if you don't throw away all of the bytes after that, perhaps the law applies to you. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
- jimnotgym 3y agoOk on the cookie banner, although that is not my reading of the law. The 'read in app' thing is ultra annoying because it pops up after you have read a sentence or two.