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.
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
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? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that’s just my impression.
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:
Your Privacy Rights
Penske Media Corporation (PMC) uses first and third-party technologies to enable PMC and third-parties to collect information about you and your interactions with our sites and services (including clicks, cursor movements and screen recordings). Learn more HERE. By continuing to use our sites or services, you agree to our Terms of Use (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions) and Privacy Policy, which have recently changed.
… which sounds a lot more status-quo to how most modern web sites behave than does LGF’s notice.
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.
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.
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 a European user would consider protective
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.
Hi, I’m Lemmy BadTakes! You may remember me from such films as “Biden’s exactly the same as Trump” and “Sure Russia’s a homicidal one-party kleptocracy where questioning the leader means prison and challenging him means death. But the United States has racist police and wealth inequality, which is actually far worse!”
Or, you can use a browser or plugin which blocks a fairly-accurate blacklist of ad tracking cookies, and not involve the sites’ dubious assurances that they’ll respect your requests for privacy into the equation at all. That seems like a way, way better way. If you want to go past that I would just configure the browser to reject cookies except from a whitelist of sites you trust, and still not involve the site’s assurances into it.
I think the EU overall does a great job at doing consumer protection and I think the “you gotta have a cookie dialog” is one isolated aspect where the law does nothing but create hassle for everyone involved, but I don’t really know; that’s just my uninformed opinion.
…says a cunty website that won’t let me refuse cookies with one click
They’re all just as bad as meta. Click on “manage options” and see how many times these fuckers are selling your data 😡
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.
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.
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
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? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that’s just my impression.
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.
And that site has the “reject all” button right away like it should have.
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.
Definitely has the “reject all” button for me
Have you checked your consumer rights? 😂
No idea what you’re asking me
Seems like a jest about whether you live in EU or not.
If you’re not in EU and are not seeing a huge reject all button, it probably means that they are serving you a worse cookie popup because of location.
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.
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 a European user would consider protective
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.
“They’re all just as bad as meta”
Lol if only you knew what meta have and do with that data
Hi, I’m Lemmy BadTakes! You may remember me from such films as “Biden’s exactly the same as Trump” and “Sure Russia’s a homicidal one-party kleptocracy where questioning the leader means prison and challenging him means death. But the United States has racist police and wealth inequality, which is actually far worse!”
You literally have an “x” button in the top-right of your web browser (or similar exit feature if you’ve disabled or moved that).
Or, you can use a browser or plugin which blocks a fairly-accurate blacklist of ad tracking cookies, and not involve the sites’ dubious assurances that they’ll respect your requests for privacy into the equation at all. That seems like a way, way better way. If you want to go past that I would just configure the browser to reject cookies except from a whitelist of sites you trust, and still not involve the site’s assurances into it.
I think the EU overall does a great job at doing consumer protection and I think the “you gotta have a cookie dialog” is one isolated aspect where the law does nothing but create hassle for everyone involved, but I don’t really know; that’s just my uninformed opinion.
deleted by creator