this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024

553 points (97.4% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35731 readers

1039 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

7. Content should match the theme of this community.

-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...

8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.

-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

LillianVS@lemmy.world

STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

553

So now I have to PAY you to NOT store files on my device that I don't want? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ilikecoffee@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Was trying to read a news story and... What fresh shitfuckery is this? Why do I now have to pay money to a company just for the privilege of not being spied upon and not getting your cookies that I don't want or need? How is this even legal?

RE: "Why are you even reading that shitrag?" -- I clicked on a link someone posted in another sublemmit, didn't realise it was the Sun till after. I do not read the Sun on the regular, chill. My point stands regardless that this is extremely shitty and should probably not be allowed.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 184 points 2 months ago (4 children)

OP, The Sun is one of the trashiest rags on the face of this Earth. Your best option regardless of their ad practices was always to stay well away from them.

[–] ilikecoffee@lemmy.world 65 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh I know, I clicked a link here on lemmy and was taken to that site. I never read it otherwise, but now Im definitely not reading it...

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

you can block websites if you want if you’re on voyager. It’ll filter out posts which link to whatever websites you list.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 18 points 2 months ago

Radical approach, because I might miss the post with interesting comments, and people often provide alternative links or straight up embed summaries.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Oooh, good tip. Didn’t know about that feature.

[–] enbee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago

I use voyager and I love you for sharing this. fuck the s*n.

[–] ilikecoffee@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I'm on Sync. I might have a look later.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago

I wouldn’t bother switching for a fewture like that. Just wanted to share incase you were on voyager.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] joe_archer@lemmy.world 66 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I'm pretty sure this is illegal under GDPR. They're just seeing how long they can get away with it for, before they have to apologise and get no punishment.

[–] fubly_glaston@feddit.org 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm seeing this kind of thing on an ever increasing number of sites in Germany. It's especially galling on sites I already pay a subscription fee for! Isn't that enough? Now I'm supposed to pay another monthly subscription to avoid tracking cookies?

I've already cancelled one news website due to this, letting them know why (they're small enough that I know they read it, since it was part of a conversation). Fat lot of good it'll do, but ....

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

I wouldn't call what they're asking for a subscription – it's ransom.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Indeed. There must be no downside to clicking no. Consent must be freely given.

Although I'd argue almost nobody complies with the spirit of the law. Popping up a consent form every time you visit unless you accidentally click accept and then never asking you again doesn't feel like consent was truly given.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, to be fair, "Why can't websites just remember that I said no to cookies?"

[–] Kayana@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 months ago

Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don't even have to ask you about them - if they're not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The best part of this is you would need to give them your personal information to pay them, and you'd need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you've paid when you access the website. 🤣🤣🤣

[–] dan@upvote.au 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

you'd need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you've paid when you access the website

Cookies that are required for and only used for operational purposes (like knowing if the user is logged in) don't require consent.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] kindenough@kbin.earth 22 points 2 months ago

Not any factor lotion will protect your mental health from "the Sun" o_O

[–] grue@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I am really fucking sick and tired of every goddamn company thinking they're entitled to colonize my property and hack it to serve them instead of me.

My computer is my property, you fascist fucks, not yours, and my actual property rights trump your Imaginary "Property" "rights" (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) every single time and in every single circumstance!

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I broadly agree with your sentiment, in particular computing equipment that I purchase and ongoing trends in tech (like smart TVs) that are abusive to consumers.

However, I find this argument not terribly persuasive in this particular case. The content of a website isn't an extension of your property. It is not even public property. Visiting a site is voluntary. You clearly didn't pay for accessing the site, nor was it subsidized through a social program. So exactly how should content (regardless of how trashy it is) be funded? Statements like "rights" (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) suggest you are espousing libertarian views, but at the same time, you are not expressing willingness to pay for a service privately?

I dunno, it just comes across as demanding a handout. Meanwhile, not visiting websites that don't meet your vision for how funding content should be done seems like a perfectly simple and reasonable approach to have for this problem.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

No you don't.

The site is trash so you leave.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 20 points 2 months ago

Oh no. It's not like that. They don't even ask you about cookies any more.

This is a payment so they don't sell all your cookie data to their 1354 trusted data partners/advertising vultures.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

you get ads whether pay or not. keep your money

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

I find it amusing that they "use cookies to give you the best possible experience", but then ask you to pay to not have them.

[–] Rookeh@startrek.website 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Solution: don't read that shitrag. It was always a waste of paper, now it is a waste of bandwidth as well.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Gikiski@fedia.io 12 points 2 months ago

The red flag there in the screenshot shows you the name of the publication you should avoid using or visiting.

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A naive question of mine, but isn't using a browser/extensions that silently/transparently blocks cookies (such as Brave, but not just it) enough to fearlessly click "Accept All Cookies", since ultimately they would be pointless for the purpose of tracking (due to the browser's own cookie blocking capabilities)?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It asks to play DRM content but plays videos anyway.

Their devs must be so sick of their business dept.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] kindenough@kbin.earth 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How is this even legal?

Because Brits voted Brrrrexit?

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We still have the UK implementation of GDPR. That didn’t go away when we left the EU.

We won’t have any changes to it that might have happened since brexit but we didn’t remove the law either.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Schal330@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

This is a US website no?

Image of The Sun U.S logo

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

When I was working on data protection issues, I asked a specialist lawyer more than two years ago how something like this could be reconciled with the GDPR. He couldn't answer the question, but said that with the best will in the world he couldn't imagine that this would be OK under data protection law. Nevertheless, this approach is now common practice for the vast majority of news sites in Europe and also in the EU, which has strict regulations regarding tracking, at least in theory. I still don't know the legal details, but at least I know that there are no serious penalties whatsoever if there is no distortion of competition involved - and since none of the news companies would sue another in this matter, this has become common practice even in the EU.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] unrushed233@lemmings.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

LibreWolf (which doesn't store any cookies or other website data by default, unless you allow it) + I still don't care about cookies or Consent-O-Matic

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] greyw0lv@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Time for 12ft.io I guess.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Jokes on you, to remember your choice for no coockies they have to use a cookie.

Ublock origins -> select element -> remove

Or auto accept/refuse cookies with extension, then auto delete cookies for all but approved sites when closing browser.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I don't think I've ever had 63 tabs open on my browser. Well done.

[–] Twitches@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Really? I regularly have well over 100, constant ♾️ Don't get me wrong, I wish I didn't.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Mad lad, hats off to you. If I have 6 or more open I start to feel uncomfortable.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a legitimate option per EU guidelines btw. They just want you to accept cookies.

[–] dan@upvote.au 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the EU rejected this. Facebook tried the exact same thing except the paid version has no ads at all (so either you get tracked, or you pay for an ad-free untracked experience) and the EU's initial findings were that it wasn't compliant because every user should have the freedom to opt out of tracking without having to pay. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/european-union-says-meta-breaking-digital-rules-with-paid-ad-free-option-for-facebook-and-instagram

Having said that, Brexit happened so I don't know if the UK still follows the same laws.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

"To change all cookie settings click_here" <-- this is the bit you want. It's free to reject all the cookies yourself.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

private session by default and using start page as your search engine with Anonymous View to search the pages saves the cookies but they are worthless one you leave the site

[–] ilikecoffee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Okay, but that's still a lot of effort, and loads more effort than 90% of users would be willing to go through. All so these fucks can (try to) sell my data to 19000 different 'vendors' and their 'legitimate interests'. I swear this needs to be legally regulated somehow before we end up having to pay these people to not monitor our webcams while we read their shitty tabloids.

BTW I do use searXNG and Startpage

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How is that not extortion?

[–] null@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Because you aren't compelled to use their site.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago

It's the Sun. No one should use their site. They're doing you a favour by showing you they're assholes the second you land on their site.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments