I can understand journalists not having the ability to effect change in a publication’s dodgy practices and funding model.

But this article is written by “The Editorial Board.”

@laura
Wait do people seriously sit around for 40 seconds for a page to load to read the news?
@better

@laura @better

Whishing The Guardian would forego their trackers and become entirely tracker-free. They have set up a different donation-based finance model, after all, that seems to be quite a success.

@humanetech @laura @better I wrote to them about this a while ago telling them they won't have my money again if A> They sneakily make voluntary donations into repeat payments, and B> keep on writing about how evil Facebook etc. are with tens of links in every page.

@laura @better That's something I've been wondering about. Do you happen to know why 29 trackers is somehow better than 1?

It makes absolutely not sense to me, but I don't know much about this industry.

@loke @better I think a few factors add up to that many, like different features on offer from different trackers, adding new trackers with duplicate functionality without bothering to remove older trackers, people from different departments wanting their own chosen trackers, and a lack of oversight/consideration for the combined impact.

@laura @better Wow. Thanks. That would suggest that there isn't even a reason, other than incompetence.

@loke @better or greed! Occasionally I think people genuinely don’t consider the human impact of tracking, site visitors are seen as numbers to be manipulated, not other humans.

@laura @loke @better what makes you think that 'occasionally' and not all the time? :-) Any evidence to the contrary?

@laura not a big difference
There’s a fire wall between business and editorial

That’s why you will see papers openly critique owners

@laura If only a concept like "practice what you preach" existed... :thinkgoing:

@laura this is a joke on how they force the EU regulated “cookie consent” down your throat, hypocritically performing the same things the lead is criticizing, right?

@miya the joke is that they say you can’t consent to deliberately obscure terms and conditions which mean you sign your data away without knowledge of how it could be used against you. (I agree with this.) Yet they track readers and use the same methods themselves. (I am broadly pro-regulation.)

@laura This is a horrible state of affairs, but that is a beautiful screenshot that captures the problem so well.

LB: A good article meditating on this explicitly is Quinn Norton's The Hypocrisy of the Internet Journalist (2015)
medium.com/message/the-hypocri
"I’m selling you out as hard as I can,
and I’m sorry."

@laura

@laura "let's lower the bar even MORE instead of forcing people to be responsible with what they do"

@laura talk about "con": look at this Opt Out button. I mean, just *look at it*.

This is on nytimes.com in case you're wondering.

@GDPR_HallOfShame

Honestly, I don't think one needs to be a legal eagle to realise that those cookie banners do not remotely meet the definition of informed consent, and therefore, nor is the action of dismissing the banner contractually binding.

@laura

@61 @laura I am more concerned with the actual (journalistic) integrity of these publications. If the first thing they try is to deceive you to give up your data then how can I assume their ethical standards are any better when choose what to write?

@GDPR_HallOfShame

Journalistic integrity? Oh I'm sure they've heard of it. 😁

Bad jokes aside, I know some journos myself, some on a professional and some on a personal capacity, and the interaction between the individual and organisational ethos is a very complex matter.

@laura

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Little updates, posts, and toot-able things by Laura Kalbag. Leave your surveillance capitalism shackles behind and come join me in the fediverse! Want to know why I’m here? Read my post on ‘What is Mastodon and why should I use it?’