United Kingdom

4105 readers

112 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Should you have to pay for online privacy? (www.bbc.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It is an increasingly common message from websites: browse for free - if you allow us to track your data and target you with personalised ads - if you don't, hand over some cash.

The model is known as "consent or pay" and, while it may be becoming increasingly common, questions remain over whether it is ethical or even legal.

The UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has launched a consultation, external on the practice - it will report its findings later this year.

"In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models that involve 'consent or pay,'" the ICO says on its website.

But it continues: "However, any organisation considering such a model must be careful to ensure that consent... has been freely given and is fully informed, as well as capable of being withdrawn without detriment."
[…]
Newspapers such as MailOnline, The Sun, The Independent and The Times have all recently brought in "consent or pay" models.

"It's basically saying, 'We're giving people a choice. They can either pay and get ad-free access to our articles, or they can be tracked, or they can walk away and not read it,'" Philippa Donn says.

This question being considered by the ICO and others is - is that a fair choice?

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They can either pay and get ad-free access to our articles

But it's not ad-free access though.

Screenshot from the Mirror asking to pay £2 for non tracking ads or be tracked and read for free

[–] huginn@feddit.it 4 points 3 months ago

Absolutely not then - if you're getting money from me I will not brook any ads

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A "consent and pay", or "paywall" (or even "register-wall") website is totally fine and should be free to exist - but it shouldn't be indexed by search engines as a response to a question, and shouldn't be linkable on any form of social media.

[–] ____@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago

Wasn’t sure I’d agree when I started reading, but I like the way you think.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, in the sense that violating people's privacy should be disallowed entirely and not be a matter of "consent." If a website requires payment then it should be a payment from all users in order to receive access, not just from privacy-conscious users in order to receive privacy.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago

Sorry, there are no remaining questions.

It is as unethical as it can get. It's evil late-stage capitalism, and the people perpetrating it should be strung up.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I encountered that the other day and was quite surprised. I then went and summoned the archived version, read the article and carried on with my day.

It seems an effective way of making your ad revenue drop off a cliff but it might be an admission that they aren't making enough from ads.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Enough people pay or concede their privacy. The people that avoid it were already using ad blockers and not making them any money.

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, we think we should pay but in the sense that we should put more money into non venture capitalist and non shareholder backed, non-commercial, open source and privacy-focused sites and services etc, and forgo the commercial sites and services that think they need to erode our privacy in the first place.

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

Capitalism drives innovation!

The innovation:

[–] Naich@lemmings.world 5 points 3 months ago

That's fair enough. They can do that on their site and I'll just not bother reading it and go somewhere else. Fuck them.

[–] apis@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

We dumbly agree, out of convenience or some notion that if we wanted to read the paper edition we'd have to pay for it, but one can shell out cash for the paper, pick it up in a waiting room, read a friend's copy, etc.

As soon as we attach a subscription to an online edition, all that happens is they get more data on us (as we are les inclined to delete their tracking cookies) whilst handing over solid confirmation that we are who they suspected we probably are.

If you must subscribe, use a dedicated browser & multiple measures to confound tracking.