It is funny that they load Google Analytics and Doubleclick. There's also trackers for Comscore and Amazon on the page.

Same here, so I always close the tab.

Probably it's too late. Or do they really load the scripts from Google et al after you click "Accept"?

Surprisingly, before you click Agree they make no third party requests and only set one cookie (AB=1, presumably because I'm using an ad blocker) and one Session Storage value (slateFontsLoaded=true).

Unlike Samsonite, who I recently discovered set large number of cookies and make a bunch of third party requests before you click on Agree.

Same here. I just spend 3 minutes trying to figure out how to opt out, but couldn't find it in the walls of texts and links down the rabbit hole. Closed the tab.

I leave or click the Reader Mode button in Safari. But my guess is that those cookies have already been set.

I'm not sure why people "guess" when this is the easiest thing in the world to test. I jut tried and, apart from a basic anonymous-looking slate.com session cookie, no cookies are set until you click "Agree".

Because I was talking about sites in general with these dialoges, not just this specific site.

You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article on any other "news site" - so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement?

> so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement?

In fairness, that sounds fairly reasonable. I don't know much about Slate (and the advertising consent makes me hesitant to click it), but if I'm an author wanting to write about privacy concerns, and I have Google publish me (be it by Blogger or some other medium), wouldn't my article feel a bit.. odd?

I'd be asking you to set aside your privacy concerns so you can read my post about why you should be concerned about privacy.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm not even clicking the article based on the silly terms. Yet, these comments make me feel it's similar in concept. Why should we step aside our privacy so we can discuss privacy? The content is on a less than stellar medium for privacy discussions, at the very least.

Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect his privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect my privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss my concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss his concerns about privacy then?

> He simply chooses to dismiss _my_ concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss _his_ concerns about privacy then?

I don’t see how that follows. Even if the author were positively malicious, why would you ignore their concerns about privacy, which affect you and everyone else? It’s a non-sequitur.

I'm not saying his concerns are invalid just because he posts them on slate. I'm not saying his concerns are invalid at all. I would be able to criticize the validity of his concerns if I were able to read them. I have no choice but to ignore them because I'm not prepared to pay the price of my personal data. And I find that quite ironic, since apparently they are about protecting online privacy in the first place.

In an article where the author is writing about how their privacy is being infringed and they have chosen to switch away from that infringing service I'd say it would be fair to ask the author why they're publishing on a platform that doesn't respect their readers privacy.

From the article:

> If nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips.

If they were serious about privacy they could not write for Slate or at least comment on how the very site we're reading this on also has major privacy issues.

Author agreed to have their article published there.

NoScript blocks that nicely. The page looks fine without JS.

I guess my ad blocker blocked that