You must log in or register to comment.
Hahaha! “We need access to your private data to protect your privacy.” We’ve come full circle.
Lmao, “required componentes to protect your privacy” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
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! :)
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.
Thanks for caring about my privacy, CNN, sorry I couldn’t be more helpful in facilitating your solid privacy measures.
You can be more helpful, though.
Go to a different website.
If it were working “as intended”, the site wouldn’t know you’re there. 🤌🏼
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
Does this crap still appear when you disable JavaScript?
I would never do that to CNN.
Tangentially, CNN does have a text-mostly version: lite.cnn.com
Nah I’m good.
Huh. Must be leftover from the early days of the mobile Internet. Kinda like Reddit’s old mobile site (which now just redirects to Reddit’s current mobile site).
old.reddit.com’s not working for you? How about reddit.com/.i?
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.
Piped: piped.video Invidious: yewtu.be
Those would be good places to start, if you still want YouTube content without the YouTube front-end.
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.
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.
I just bought a Nebula subscription. I can’t say they’re a replacement for YT, but they have good content.
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.
Google is the 4th richest company in the world… Besides they don’t deserve a dime from you, fuck them.
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.
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.
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.
(i don’t use brave browser btw)
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.
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.
Right? About what? Legally? Morally? Not-being-cunts-ally? Fuck CNN man, laws schmaws, they are doing everything they can to skirt it, please.
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.
I’m afraid that protection might not last long.
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
I use chameleon to change my user agent every 60 seconds. Its just one of many tools that I think are important to protect your privacy in the web browser.
Why is it unethical?
I think they mean it would be wholly unethical reading CNN articles. :)
That is indeed what I meant (since they block the viewers based on browser haha)
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?
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.
Personally I find a good high caliber handgun to work most of the time also.
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
I’m pretty sure you could argue that CNN is a lot of things but right wing is not one of them.
right compared to actual leftists (not liberals)
Please dont post pictures of text without transcribing the text.
My bad, I’m still new to this. Someone else kindly did below, no offense meant.
Please update the post with the transcript, add a link to the source page where the text appears, dont do this again, and let others know.
Let’s maintain the quality of this comm.
Who are you?
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.
The plan should be “Tracking opt-in required - no banners or notifications allowed.”
