CNN has been shit since 10 years ago. Their apogee was the first Gulf War and it has been down hill since then. Unironically, go to Tiktok if you want the latest happenings, usually right as it happens by the people it is happening to.
I got the same message on iOS Safari with no special config or UA switching (just an ad-blocker). I figure it’s a badly implemented feature. But holy shit I thought the browser wars settled out a long time ago and we had decent standards in place, guess we’re regressing back 20 years though.
TBH There should be more RSS feeds and more work around them (RSS readers are still good tho) so that news are delivered without paywalls and in a user friendly way
I’ve been getting back on the RSS train in the past year or two, after dropping off when I started getting all of my news on Twitter. After that was proven to be a terrible idea, I discovered that my Feedly account was still there waiting for me. I’ll be self-hosting something else soon, but my post-Twitter, federated, RSS-driven media consumption has so far given me a lot more control.
I’m considering Miniflux, though I don’t know if I agree with some of their opinions. The jury is out.
I like Feedly fine, but the fact that I can’t use their app without having an ad presented as a piece of content I requested is beyond the pale for me and the website is a little too jank to use on mobile even with uBO.
Heh, we had this problem with a work product a month ago. it’s the suppress cookie popups feature.
Legislation in some areas requires people to opt in to cookies, but add blockers block the banner pop, so from a legal compliance standard they’re not in compliance even though it’s something the users are doing.
Not just the legal team. Every time there’s new legislation like this, a new set of contractors pop up offering to walk your company through what it needs to do to be compliant. Nobody is quite sure what the limits are–and nobody will for several years until court precedents work out the issues–so those contractors are going to tell you to assume the worst case interpretation.
PCI Compliance (technically a contractual obligation rather than legal), Sarbanes-Oxley, and GDPR were good things, but all of them spawned a sub-industry of grifters.
The California stuff still has yet to play out in courts but the European law covering it was actually pretty significant. And it was enough of a pain in the ass that they recently said they’re going to repeal it.
And it was enough of a pain in the ass that they recently said they’re going to repeal it.
Repeal the EU law? I’ve heard that they were going to tweak it, but that usually means they’ll tighten it, like when they clarified you can’t make a cookie banner with thousands of individual opt-out switches.
How would blocking the pop-up be violating the law, though? If the pop-up doesn’t show, you’re not able to agree to cookies. You don’t provide your explicit consent, therefore the website must assume you don’t want to be tracked. The presence of the pop-up shouldn’t be changing anything for people not willing to opt in, should it?
Or perhaps they’re self-aware and have set it up to only opt you out by filling out the form, which you can’t do if it isn’t there. Or they just want you to agree to those “required” cookies? I don’t know.
They literally explained. Some jurisdictions require them to ask you about cookies but the way some people configure their browser blocks this legally required prompt, potentially exposing them to legal action.
The cookie popup is only required if you’re serving cookies. If the user is unable to accept/reject, or chooses not to, the correct action is to not serve any cookies to stay compliant with the law.
It is obvious that you should not serve a single cookie until after the user has accepted it. Unless you’re intentionally being an ass of course
Horseshit. The legislation does not just require that they “ask.”
If the pop-up can’t be served, all it means is that they can’t use the cookies or tracking restricted by the legislation. If the user did not consent for any reason, then they did not consent. This includes if the pop-up is not displayed for whatever reason. It’s not the user’s fault CNN is too stupid to understand this. If they don’t serve illegal cookies or perform illegal tracking, then they don’t have to ask. It’s pretty damn simple.
In reality, they’re just using this to try to prevent people from using an ad blocker on their site, and making up a rationalization post-hoc.
Blocking the pop-up isn’t violating the law. Nevertheless we needed the cookie for the login. If we didn’t get you to authorize the cookie you really had no business in the app because it would not work for you. It was a bad design but it was third party.
But we couldn’t even pop that up because the browsers just tried to slide by any notifications about cookies
It took me so long to figure out what you meant about accounts and stuff until I remembered you were talking about your own product. I get it now. Do you think it’s a similar situation here, where the site is reliant on these third-party cookies to function at all?
First-party cookies that are needed for site functionality (like a login cookie) dont require explicit consent.
Feel free to proceed without a cookie banner.
From gdpr.eu:
Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user
The cookie blockers automatically decline cookie consent with the minimum possible cookies.
If your site is GDPR compliant it must respect the consent triggers by the extension as the consent is identical to if a human user correctly filled out the cookie form to acknowledge only the minimum required cookies.
That’s assuming the extension manages to hit your trigger correctly. They did not make the js call, just blocked the div. Oddly, they left our full page control block in place. We had to modify our triggers to make it work.
We had a form button on a div slide in with a 30% dimmed background div behind it. The button just did a JS call to trigger to safe cookies or not and unblock the back div.
The browsers were just unblocking the banner div on us they weren’t making the button call. I’m sure they do something very smart to try to figure out how to automatically click okay or cancel, somehow it just didn’t line up with what we had written.
With how MS Teams and now CNN have been reported here to be blocking Firefox, you know that Firefox is doing things right. If web giants are ganging up against it, it’s all the more reason to switch to it to make a statement and prevent big tech from making privacy violation the norm.
Just switched back to FF for the first time in years. Have to say, it’s helping me de-google quite quickly because they’re such bastards about playing nice with other browsers.
Do you see a similar message for other news and social media sites? My gut tells me that it’s just one of many blocklists added to your company’s firewall but they don’t have a specific message for “blocked because not work related”.
I’m getting these messages occasionally, but usually they make sense, such as when I go to online gaming sites or torrenting portals. Didn’t try porn - don’t want a call from HR. In general, our IT policies are fairly sensible; this is one of the very few outliers.
