Last time we checked for @better, nytimes .com was loading 29 third-party trackers.
@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.
@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 not a big difference
There’s a fire wall between business and editorial
That’s why you will see papers openly critique owners
@laura this podcast with Paul Ford is really illuminating on these issues
https://digiday.com/podcast/build-great-digital-products-paul-ford-media-postlight/
@laura Not ironic
@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)
https://medium.com/message/the-hypocrisy-of-the-internet-journalist-587d33f6279e
"I’m selling you out as hard as I can,
and I’m sorry."
@gaditb thanks! That sounds like a really worthwhile read.
@laura the irony is strong with this one
@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.
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.
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 ahh soooooooooooooo true
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.”