websites that serve users in the EU need to allow you to decline cookies, not just tell you about the fact they use them. this website is actually breaking EU privacy law, it’s definitely not what the I would consider protective
Who the fuck is upvoting this
LGF's policy is one of the most upfront and protective ones I've ever seen, second only to something like Pluralistic or other sites which simply don't do ads. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like they make it clear they run Google Ads which require cookies, tell you how to opt out of the data collection on Google's side, and promise not to leak your information to anyone except Google.
Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on the site.
Google’s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy.
We may contract with third-party service providers to assist us in better understanding our site visitors. These service providers are not permitted to use the information collected on our behalf except to help us conduct and improve our business.
We do not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer to outside parties your personally identifiable information. This does not include trusted third parties who assist us in operating our website, conducting our business, or servicing you, so long as those parties agree to keep this information confidential.
Whether you believe their privacy policy is a separate issue, but if you're gonna pick out someone's privacy policy to call cunty and complain about, this is about the last one I would do it to.
geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
exocrinous@startrek.website 2 months ago
I upvoted it. I don’t think it’s literally just as bad as meta, but I still think it’s bad. Websites should let you opt out of cookies in one click. If they don’t, I prefer not to use them. I’m sure this website’s article is very important, but if they want their journalism to be read they should present it in a respectful manner. Otherwise I’m just reading the headline. I like the headline, it’s a good headline, it will inform my views going forward. I will not read the article and I will not give them ad traffic.
Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 2 months ago
People with consumer rights
It’s a requirement in the EU to be able to refuse all cookies within a couple of clicks. This website should either not load in the EU, or have a “refuse” button
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 months ago
I guess I can buy the idea that they're breaking the letter of the EU law, but isn't the EU cookie law widely acknowledged to be a fairly silly attempt to protect users' privacy in terms of the reality of its implementation?
The point that I'm making is that their policy seems like it's actually constructed to protect its users' privacy, which makes it an outlier in the positive direction and makes criticism of it on this basis come off and weird and mean-spirited and not accurate.
By way of contrasting example, I picked a random other story which you'd commented on recently without feeling the need to call them cunty, and saw this notice when it's accessed from the EU:
... which sounds a lot more status-quo to how most modern web sites behave than does LGF's notice.
TeNppa@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
And that site has the “reject all” button right away like it should have.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 months ago
Where? Totally separate from tracking your mouse clicks and browser fingerprint and whatever and reserving the right to sell it to third parties being a way bigger privacy violation than having no way to refuse site-operational cookies, I also don't see any "reject all" button.
anlumo@feddit.de 2 months ago
The EU’s privacy laws don’t require a cookie dialog. It’d be legal and a way better user experience to make tracking opt-in and move the setting to some configuration menu somewhere else.