Not sure how long this has been a thing but I was surprised to see that you cannot view the content without either agreeing to all or paying to reject.
Not sure how long this has been a thing but I was surprised to see that you cannot view the content without either agreeing to all or paying to reject.
I like this analogy; it’s provocative and it made me think about the issue for longer than I would have otherwise.
However, after some thought, I don’t think it aligns perfectly since the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.
In the same vein, I think we could make a better analogy to sexting. You meet someone, seem to hit it off, and when the texts and pictures get a little spicy, they hit you with a, “you can pay me now and I will keep all of this in my private spank-bank, otherwise I’m going to share our entire relationship with a group chat I’m in with 1200+ people”
I think this is a bit stronger because it hits on a few notes where the hook-up analogy falls short: sharing of sensitive information, extortion in exchange for gratification, and the potential for an ongoing relationship.
Idk, what do you think?
I see where you’re coming from, but my understanding is that the tracking cookies are already on your machine when the banner is presented, so they’ve already put in the proverbial tip.
Lmfao the proverbial tip. OK you got me there 😂
Just the tip 😏
At least one German outlet has been shown to still track you after paying. Just a bit less. So they use a rubber with a few holes poked in.
We are rapidly nearing a point where you can’t read online news from any major (ergo “widely considered somewhat credible”) source without one of those schemes. So I’d argue that the alternative is to just not get access to online news, and that may be considered too much pressure to still consider consent as voluntary.