• Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hahaha! “We need access to your private data to protect your privacy.” We’ve come full circle.

  • BlanK0@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Lmao, “required componentes to protect your privacy” 🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You see what they’re actually doing there?

      “We are by law forced to give you the option to view our ads and accept our tracking, because of privacy legislation in your region. Since you are hindering us from doing so, you can’t come to the birthday party”.

      Ok, thank you EU, I suppose! :)

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Pretty sure CNN is (willfully) misinterpreting the law. The EU is definitely not prohibiting them from just turning off the tracking without providing a choice.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Thanks for caring about my privacy, CNN, sorry I couldn’t be more helpful in facilitating your solid privacy measures.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Youtube just recently started giving me issues on Librewolf. I actually paid for Youtube Premium for quite a while, let it lapse a couple of months ago, and I’ve been just watching with the ad blocker on. Having to go back to running stuff through Google Chrome and watching ads made me want to research “how can I watch videos without Youtube being involved” for the first time.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        It might be a little surprising given what I literally just said, but I am not unreservedly in favor of just grabbing someone else’s content from someone else’s server and then playing it without the ads that pay for the hosting bills for the origin server.

        I realize I’m probably in the minority in that, but I feel like a fully off-Youtube video hosting solution might be a better way.

        • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          In this case, the someone else is Alphabet megacorp. I wouldn’t waste any concern on them. The content is still hosted by YouTube, just played through the invidious instance.

          To do away with all those concerns, you could self-host invidious, or donate to the instance you choose to use if self-hosting is outside of your technical prowess. If you want to support certain creators, donate to them directly instead.

        • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I just bought a Nebula subscription. I can’t say they’re a replacement for YT, but they have good content.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, I was gonna say something about Nebula / Curiositystream. I actually think that that + somewhere to play music would take care of 95% of what I use Youtube for.

        • kworpy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Google is the 4th richest company in the world… Besides they don’t deserve a dime from you, fuck them.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          being a yt-dlp user myself, who runs a media server for mostly YT content.

          I can say that google deserves it. They store like 2-3x the amount of data that they need to be storing per video. 11 files for a single video 1080p to 4k. All different bitrates, some barely different than any others. (i realize it’s for codec support, but like, seriously?)

          especially when they run predatory ads, force services into youtube premium that you don’t want, just generally do not respect the creator base and certainly not the viewer base. Honestly i think google deserves to lose money right now.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Welcome to the Corporate Internet.

    Get ready to play by Their Rules on Their Services.

    Good thing a lot of them are useless fucking Dinosaurs like CNN that need to die anyway.

    • astraeus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s why places like Lemmy and Mastodon are nice, even if big corpo buys up some instances, there’s still the option to just start free ones elsewhere.

  • Mikina@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I haven’t really looked into it too much, but… Aren’t they actually right in this case?

    Sure, reading “we can’t protect your privacy because you’re using privacy-centric extension…” feels like bullshit, but from how I understand it based on the screenshot, the issue is that you have blocked the cookie permissions pop-up, whose main reason is to give you an option to opt-out of any tracking cookies, thus protecting your privacy. While also being required by law.

    However, this depends on how exactly is the law formulated. How does it deals with a case where you don’t accept, nor decline any cookies, and just ignore it? Are they not allowed to save any cookie until you accept it and specify what exactly can they save? Or should they not let you use the site until you accept it?

    I vaguely remember that it used to be enough to just have a OK-able warning that this site is using cookies, but then it changed to include a choice to opt-out. Which could indicate that unless you opt-out, which they are required to give you a chance to, they can use whatever tracking cookies they want. And if that is the case, this message is actually correct.

    • majora@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      In the EU they must assume you have opted out until you explicitly opt in. blocking the popuip by law, must be treated as opting out. or to be more specific, its aconsent thing. they must assume they do not have consent until you explicitly give it.if this popup is in the EU, its a violation to my knowledge as it is forcing the user to change theirbrowsers settings or opt into something not necessary.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Right? About what? Legally? Morally? Not-being-cunts-ally? Fuck CNN man, laws schmaws, they are doing everything they can to skirt it, please.

  • roscoe@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Turning off Java script worked when this happened to me. Firefox and ublock origin. It breaks some things but you can do it on a per site basis.

  • BiggestBulb@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Could probably try spoofing the user-agent of you really need to use their service (I mean, I wouldn’t, this is wholly unethical). The Floorp browser (a fork of Firefox) comes with the ability to spoof to other browsers easily

  • Juvyn00b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m a noob… But hear me out. Does anyone make a browser extension that fools the site into thinking you’ve accepted the cookie(s) when you really haven’t?

    • lseif@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      well, if the website thinks that it is allowed to store cookies, it will. but cookies make you easy to track across sessions.

      generally i’ve found that changing the useragent and/or vpn location will work.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    CNN Management: I’m worried that since our purchase by a right-wing nut job and our spectacular idiot explosion of the last CEO, that we’re still in danger of being considered a valid corporate news outlet. What can we do?

    CNN Schmuck: We could force mandatory tracking and ads on all website visitors.

    CNN Management: Brilliant!

    toilet flushing noises

  • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    CNN might be the only site I’ve seen that actually checks if you have made a cookie choice then. The whole cookie acceptance thing is dumb, but they are following the law.

    Thankfully there is a plan that EU will make changes fo current policy so those popups might go away.