A “consent and pay”, or “paywall” (or even “register-wall”) website is totally fine and should be free to exist - but it shouldn’t be indexed by search engines as a response to a question, and shouldn’t be linkable on any form of social media.
Should you have to pay for online privacy?
Submitted 8 months ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93599ejdeno
Comments
fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 8 months ago
____@infosec.pub 8 months ago
Wasn’t sure I’d agree when I started reading, but I like the way you think.
grue@lemmy.world 8 months ago
No, in the sense that violating people’s privacy should be disallowed entirely and not be a matter of “consent,” so if a website requires payment then it would be a payment from all users in order to receive access, not from privacy-conscious users in order to receive privacy.
swordgeek@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Sorry, there are no remaining questions.
It is as unethical as it can get. It’s evil late-stage capitalism, and the people perpetrating it should be strung up.
Emperor@feddit.uk 8 months ago
I encountered that the other day and was quite surprised. I then went and summoned the archived version, read the article and carried on with my day.
It seems an effective way of making your ad revenue drop off a cliff but it might be an admission that they aren’t making enough from ads.
ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Enough people pay or concede their privacy. The people that avoid it were already using ad blockers and not making them any money.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
Yes, we think we should but in the sense that we should put more money into non venture capitalist, non shareholder, non-commercial, open source sites and services etc, and forgo the commercial sites and services that think they need to erode our privacy in the first place.
SoyViking@hexbear.net 8 months ago
Capitalism drives innovation!
The innovation:
Naich@lemmings.world 8 months ago
That’s fair enough. They can do that on their site and I’ll just not bother reading it and go somewhere else. Fuck them.
apis@beehaw.org 8 months ago
We dumbly agree, out of convenience or some notion that if we wanted to read the paper edition we’d have to pay for it, but one can shell out cash for the paper, pick it up in a waiting room, read a friend’s copy, etc.
As soon as we attach a subscription to an online edition, all that happens is they get more data on us (as we are les inclined to delete their tracking cookies) whilst handing over solid confirmation that we are who they suspected we probably are.
If you must subscribe, use a dedicated browser & multiple measures to confound tracking.
flamingos@feddit.uk 8 months ago
But it’s not ad-free access though.
Screenshot from the Mirror asking to pay £2 for non tracking ads or be tracked and read for free
huginn@feddit.it 8 months ago
Absolutely not then - if you’re getting money from me I will not brook any ads