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.”

Show thread

Last time we checked for @better, nytimes .com was loading 29 third-party trackers.


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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!