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.”

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

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

That’s why you will see papers openly critique owners

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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?’