"Your privacy matters to us." -> Then why are you asking me to give it up? If my privacy mattered to you you wouldn't even ask to install tracking cookies and gather my data.

It's a legacy site and they haven't finished implementing out-out-only / data-deletion / etc... I wouldn't assume malicious intent.

No, it doesn't. If it mattered, then you would act like it.

I mean, if my privacy matters to them.

I know the online news business is difficult to monetize. Only a handful of major news orgs can put paywalls up and charge subscribers directly. I get that.

So, what they do instead is use 3rd party ad networks and analytics, and traffic in my personal data, while telling me that my privacy matters.

That's why this is doublespeak. They're saying one thing (my privacy matters) while doing another (funding their operations in part on my personal data).

Is it the only viable model for them? Maybe. That's not really relevant, though.

What is "out-out-only"? My google fu is failing me.

Taking care of people can be a thankless job.

Here are a dozen healthier options: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graham+clark&t=osx&iar=news&ia=new...

https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/privacy/2019/10/pr...

Do you see why straw man arguments aren't helpful?

You may find this site helpful

another option

Sure, you try explaining that to the general public, and why most of the sites they visit don't work anymore. It's hard enough to manage as a techie. This is the same argument snake oil purveyors use to complain about health and safety regulations, and it's silly for the same reasons.

> This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want.

Which GDPR violations have been met with armed agents?

I think this is true for many technical people. And I think doing this would encourage many of us to think of better ways to design and implement no-JS fallback functionality when making things for the public to use.

The EU is tasked with protecting their public in a way that you are not.

First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got hacked? Should have turned off Javascript.” Stop blaming the victim. Browsers come with Javascript turned on by default and many sites expect Javascript will work, so it’s a reasonable expectation that users leave Javascript enabled.

Secondly there are a lot of devices that people access the web from. It’s not possible or easy to turn off Javascript on all platforms. If I ran my iPhone with Javascript disabled, every site I visited that needed Javascript would make me stop, go to Settings, scroll down to find Safari, scroll all the way to the bottom to find Advanced, then toggle the Javascript button. Then go back to Safari, view the site I wanted to see, then do it all over again to disable Javascript again. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest.

Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing GDPR with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.

People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution.

First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms.

Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest.

Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.

Privacy-wise there's certainly more fingerprintable data available to the program than what you would get in a typical VM.

Yes, quite. I won't repeat the phrase that immediately came to mind when I read that, but I will say it ended with, "you News Channel 8!"

Europeans should be impressed that American sites were so quick to comply with their well thought out and reasonable regulations.