This isn’t as big a problem as people make it out to be. Their role is to report. If they are corrupt but still report on corruption, then they haven’t failed as journalists, merely as an organisation. If they violate privacy, but still report on it, same deal. We can denounce them while still appreciating their actual reporting.

Problems arise when their nefarious behaviour affects the actual reporting. But, ironically, the more hypocritical they are (i.e. the more they report on the thing they do wrong) the less likely that is.

I’d say with every damnation of a news organisation for their privacy violations, we should in parallel celebrate their dedication to report on that which they are guilty of. The alternative of total silence would be worse.

In this specific case, yes, I think they have failed. It's different when you're a non-vegan writing about veganism and critizise non-vegans.

It's not okay to be corrupt and condemn corruption in your article. I can't take your opinion seriously if you don't live at all by the values you seem to protect or preach for in your writing...

“ Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).”

Sometimes "whatabouism" is just trying to make sure that the standard being demanded is based in reality and can be maintained by others who find themselves in the same position.

This is different. They are taking part in the same behavior they are calling out as detrimental while being detrimental to the people they supposedly giving advice to.

It’d be like a addiction counselor selling addictive substances to people the counselor is advising about addiction.

But then, they do it because it's supposed to help their patients with their addiction, not because it makes them money.

In any case, it’s not like these outlets are doing it to eventually wean people from trackers by tracking them more mildly.

They have.

I’ve think we’re all in glass houses on this one because we’ve helped make Google and Facebook into absolute juggernauts by letting them track the hell out of us while continuing to use their products. It shouldn’t be surprising that a struggling industry like journalism would follow suit.

There is some good part about this: There is some amount of separation of journalism and business. The journalists should be free to report anything they consider worthy to cover and the business running the site and going out to advertisers etc. doesn't influence this. This is good as it prevents big advertisers from preventing bad reporting. Of course it doesn't fully work, but in Germany it is better than in many other places in that regard.

This is illegal. Simple as. Flag the post and move on. Complain to the Information Commissioner if you feel like it.

If that were true, everyone would simply claim "tracking is essential for my business" and the law would be toothless.

If they want to show ads for Ford in the car section of the newspaper, that's fine. If they want to show targeted ads provided that I agree with it, that's also fine. But showing targeted ads with no way to opt-out is not allowed.

I don't know what my HOSTS file is blocking, but I assume it also cuts off some of the ads/trackers.

If you actually want all ads blocked, I'd suggest Raymond Hill's uBlock Origin [2].

[1] https://help.getadblock.com/support/solutions/articles/60000...

[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Since I never got farther than that on <whatever yahoo calls their privacy non-consent tech this week>, I don't know how much it blocks later.

Same here. I usually 'proxy' through the Internet Archive in these situations: https://web.archive.org/web/20200213123006/https://techcrunc...

1. HN's upvote/downvote system. This allows posts that the audience finds more interesting to move to the top. If you don't want to see something, downvote it. If it's on the top that means other people want to see it.

2. The little [-] icon allow you to close an subtree of conversations with a single click.

EDIT: Yeah, it doesn't seem possible to withdraw consent. I stopped after ten clicks that only led to "informational" pages where sentences stopped mid-way.

In that way you kinda know which DNS they used.

Therefore, talk to your local DPA. For example, in The Netherlands, you'd talk to the "Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens" (translated: Personal data protection agency"). All EU countries have some sort of governmental institution, usually named something along the lines of 'data protection agency'. As per the article, the one in Ireland is called "Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC)" – and they took the lead on blocking FB Dating.

They have a form specifically for reporting concerns with websites' use of cookies, see https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/cookies/.