Those are both unusable too. If only the author had put it on his own blog like in the good old days.

That's the author's choice and anyone is free to reject creation an account. The second part on the other hand looks less "rejectable":

> By using Medium, you agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

The implicit assumption that by clicking on a medium link the user accepted the policies is illegal under GDPR. It doesn't give the chance to reject before being tracked.

OP made a plea, not a demand:

> Please don't use Medium, post to Medium, or share Medium links.

There was no implication people don't have a choice to keep using terrible software.

You misunderstood me, it wasn't OP's implication, it's Medium's. Medium implies that by clicking on their link I agreed with their ToS/cookies (so tracking). This is not just a wrong implication, it's an illegal one.

The person I was replying to above only referred to the paywall issue when I think the main basis for the initial plea to avoid Medium was the second point, Medium's objectionable or illegal practices (not just "terrible") against its users. It's sensible to plea not using it or at least not promoting it here.

Illegal where? In the EU? I don't think it is illegal in the US at least.

Ah gotcha, my mistake.