top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 366 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Why won't you let them protect your privacy???

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:

    They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you're blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you're blocking it)?

    Weird thing. Doubt there'd be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that's of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it's an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what's allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

    • browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user's preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
    • browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
    • regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
    • regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
    • any combination or all of the above
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature.

    Well, it kind of is. The Do Not Track header has recently seen a court win in Germany (source):

    It turned out that the judge agreed with vzbv, ruling that the social media giant is no longer allowed to warn users it doesn't respect DNT signals. That's because, under GDPR, the right to opt out of web tracking and data collection can also be exercised using automated procedures.

    And it is basically the same in California too Source

    GPC is a valid do-not-sell-my-personal-information signal according to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which stipulates that websites are legally required to respect a signal sent by users who want to opt-out of having their personal data sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 237 points 2 years ago*

    INVADING YOUR PRIVACY IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY

    LET US IN!!!

  • source
  • [–] 176 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    "We're tracking you for your privacy 🙄

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 134 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “Protect your privacy” is literally why we use uBO…

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 123 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    you blocked the stuff we need to protect your privacy

    holy shit fuck you you lying fuck

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    They could be telling the truth... It's possible that OP is in Europe and the ad blocker is blocking a GDPR cookie consent notice.

    The message explicitly mentions EasyList Cookie, which is described like this on https://easylist.to/:

    EasyList Cookie List blocks cookies banners, GDPR overlay windows and other privacy-related notices.

    Edit: I'm not agreeing with what they're doing. I'm just saying that the message may be accurate. Having said that, maybe blocking a cookie banner should count as an opt-out, so they shouldn't show this notice and instead just automatically reject the cookies. I'm not sure if the law is clear around this, though.

    If you want to opt-out of tracking cookies, consent-o-matic will likely work better. It automatically clicks the right buttons in the consent notice for you.

    Edit 2: The law seems unclear about what to do if the consent notice is blocked by the viewer's browser (and thus they can neither accept nor reject cookies), so maybe blocking access to the site is likely the safest approach for them to take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 96 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    No one has mentioned the good version of that site, https://lite.cnn.com -- no ads, no bloat, works fine with UBO.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 94 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    CNN: We can’t ask if you want to allow cookies because you’re blocking everything

    Me: Which means I don’t want you to……….?

    CNN: No idea, we have to ask you.

    Me: I’m so strict you can’t even ask meaning………?

    CNN: You….

    Me: Yes?

    CNN: Uh……….. don’t want…..

    Me: Yesssss………

    CNN: To miss out on us asking you.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 72 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    I just opened CNN on firefox with unblock origin on both mobile and desktop without issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 62 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I had that with "I don't care about cookies" add-on.

    I disabled it and then it blocked me for being from Europe. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 60 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly CNN isn't great and this screen is just a reminder to go somewhere else.

    I just hope this isn't a trend.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    if you're in the us, just donate to your local pbs or npr station and watch newshour/pbs world.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 41 points 2 years ago

    They’re doing you a favor

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I block CNN by not visiting their website.

    The only CNN worth anything is CNN International, and that still works fine with all ad blockers raised. But even CNN International started pulling the same stunt, it's not remotely good enough that I would miss it either.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Funny... My company (over 100k employees worldwide) is blocking CNN as a security risk...

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If someone's savy enough for ublock I'm sure they're savy enough to tell CNN to get fucked

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, guess we won't visit CNN anymore 🤷

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago*

    required components that protect your privacy

    Talk about doublespeak. Double-plus-good, eh?

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm using Firefox with uBlock Origin and cnn.com loads for me without any issues.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Says you're using Brave...

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Also fuck that goddamn Admiral antiadblock.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Post title says Firefox, but the screenshot is saying Brave. 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    If CNN wants me to use their website they need to sign a contract that says they need to eat my shit with a spoon. Legal repercussions if they violate.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    This is Beyond "Can I interest you in some Tracking cookies ?" , this is "You MF better put these cookies down your throat or I will shove them up your Ass".

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Heh, we had this problem with a work product a month ago. it's the suppress cookie popups feature.

    Legislation in some areas requires people to opt in to cookies, but add blockers block the banner pop, so from a legal compliance standard they're not in compliance even though it's something the users are doing.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    The cookie blockers automatically decline cookie consent with the minimum possible cookies.

    If your site is GDPR compliant it must respect the consent triggers by the extension as the consent is identical to if a human user correctly filled out the cookie form to acknowledge only the minimum required cookies.

    CNN in the OP is just gaslighting the user here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Ironically, that message can only be shown if they are invading your privacy.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago*

    Good. Stop going there. But also, make sure your lists are up to date. The anti-annoying block list usually blocks these scripts from executing.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    They also blocks you with the same message if you want to read an article about Bibi from Austria. If you try with the VPN, they'll let you read it. The article: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/snyder-netanyahu-holocaust-remarks/index.html

  • source
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago*

    Works fine for me with firefox and Ublock. What does give me this exact message though is a extention called IDontCareAboutCookies

  • source
  • [+] 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Who cares? What are you missing out on, more shit tier journalism?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›