this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
1121 points (97.3% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

34396 readers
122 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 366 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why won't you let them protect your privacy???

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 88 points 6 months ago (5 children)

To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:

They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you're blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you're blocking it)?

Weird thing. Doubt there'd be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that's of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it's an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 89 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what's allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

  • browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user's preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
  • browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
  • regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
  • regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
  • any combination or all of the above
[–] habitualTartare@lemmy.world 51 points 6 months ago

Sounds like do not track +

[–] Mechanize@feddit.it 39 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature.

Well, it kind of is. The Do Not Track header has recently seen a court win in Germany (source):

It turned out that the judge agreed with vzbv, ruling that the social media giant is no longer allowed to warn users it doesn't respect DNT signals. That's because, under GDPR, the right to opt out of web tracking and data collection can also be exercised using automated procedures.

And it is basically the same in California too Source

GPC is a valid do-not-sell-my-personal-information signal according to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which stipulates that websites are legally required to respect a signal sent by users who want to opt-out of having their personal data sold.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

They should just treat it as declined every necessary cookie and move on

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 237 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

INVADING YOUR PRIVACY IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY

LET US IN!!!

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 176 points 6 months ago (4 children)

"We're tracking you for your privacy 🙄

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] plz1@lemmy.world 134 points 6 months ago (1 children)

“Protect your privacy” is literally why we use uBO…

[–] ogginger43@infosec.pub 18 points 6 months ago

"Protect your privacy from us"

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 123 points 6 months ago (1 children)

you blocked the stuff we need to protect your privacy

holy shit fuck you you lying fuck

[–] dan@upvote.au 53 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

They could be telling the truth... It's possible that OP is in Europe and the ad blocker is blocking a GDPR cookie consent notice.

The message explicitly mentions EasyList Cookie, which is described like this on https://easylist.to/:

EasyList Cookie List blocks cookies banners, GDPR overlay windows and other privacy-related notices.

Edit: I'm not agreeing with what they're doing. I'm just saying that the message may be accurate. Having said that, maybe blocking a cookie banner should count as an opt-out, so they shouldn't show this notice and instead just automatically reject the cookies. I'm not sure if the law is clear around this, though.

If you want to opt-out of tracking cookies, consent-o-matic will likely work better. It automatically clicks the right buttons in the consent notice for you.

Edit 2: The law seems unclear about what to do if the consent notice is blocked by the viewer's browser (and thus they can neither accept nor reject cookies), so maybe blocking access to the site is likely the safest approach for them to take.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] solrize@lemmy.world 96 points 5 months ago (6 children)

No one has mentioned the good version of that site, https://lite.cnn.com -- no ads, no bloat, works fine with UBO.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 94 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

CNN: We can’t ask if you want to allow cookies because you’re blocking everything

Me: Which means I don’t want you to……….?

CNN: No idea, we have to ask you.

Me: I’m so strict you can’t even ask meaning………?

CNN: You….

Me: Yes?

CNN: Uh……….. don’t want…..

Me: Yesssss………

CNN: To miss out on us asking you.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 71 points 6 months ago (14 children)

I just opened CNN on firefox with unblock origin on both mobile and desktop without issue.

[–] bilb@lem.monster 38 points 6 months ago

I wonder if it has to do with the region you try to load it from. The message in the screenshot seems to indicate that it might.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Blackmist@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I had that with "I don't care about cookies" add-on.

I disabled it and then it blocked me for being from Europe. 🤷‍♂️

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 6 months ago

serves you right, you filthy European! /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 60 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Honestly CNN isn't great and this screen is just a reminder to go somewhere else.

I just hope this isn't a trend.

[–] vermyndax@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Sadly, it is a trend.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 6 months ago (4 children)

if you're in the us, just donate to your local pbs or npr station and watch newshour/pbs world.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 41 points 6 months ago

They’re doing you a favor

[–] Bruncvik@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Funny... My company (over 100k employees worldwide) is blocking CNN as a security risk...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I block CNN by not visiting their website.

The only CNN worth anything is CNN International, and that still works fine with all ad blockers raised. But even CNN International started pulling the same stunt, it's not remotely good enough that I would miss it either.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] squid_slime@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If someone's savy enough for ublock I'm sure they're savy enough to tell CNN to get fucked

[–] uhrbaan@feddit.ch 33 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well, guess we won't visit CNN anymore 🤷

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

required components that protect your privacy

Talk about doublespeak. Double-plus-good, eh?

[–] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 6 months ago (3 children)

so? nothing worth reading there anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm using Firefox with uBlock Origin and cnn.com loads for me without any issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Says you're using Brave...

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

If CNN wants me to use their website they need to sign a contract that says they need to eat my shit with a spoon. Legal repercussions if they violate.

[–] hal_5700X@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Post title says Firefox, but the screenshot is saying Brave. 🤔

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Also fuck that goddamn Admiral antiadblock.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ublock Origin usually blocks Admiral. If it isn’t, you can submit an issue in GitHub and they’ll update.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] erranto@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

This is Beyond "Can I interest you in some Tracking cookies ?" , this is "You MF better put these cookies down your throat or I will shove them up your Ass".

[–] dukatos@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago

They also blocks you with the same message if you want to read an article about Bibi from Austria. If you try with the VPN, they'll let you read it. The article: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/snyder-netanyahu-holocaust-remarks/index.html

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (15 children)

Heh, we had this problem with a work product a month ago. it's the suppress cookie popups feature.

Legislation in some areas requires people to opt in to cookies, but add blockers block the banner pop, so from a legal compliance standard they're not in compliance even though it's something the users are doing.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 19 points 5 months ago (5 children)

The cookie blockers automatically decline cookie consent with the minimum possible cookies.

If your site is GDPR compliant it must respect the consent triggers by the extension as the consent is identical to if a human user correctly filled out the cookie form to acknowledge only the minimum required cookies.

CNN in the OP is just gaslighting the user here.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] aniki@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Good. Stop going there. But also, make sure your lists are up to date. The anti-annoying block list usually blocks these scripts from executing.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 22 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Ironically, that message can only be shown if they are invading your privacy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 20 points 6 months ago

Just switched back to FF for the first time in years. Have to say, it's helping me de-google quite quickly because they're such bastards about playing nice with other browsers.

[–] kylian0087@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Works fine for me with firefox and Ublock. What does give me this exact message though is a extention called IDontCareAboutCookies

[–] Presi300@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

Ngl, that's a blessing in disguise

[–] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago (4 children)

CNN got bought out by a right-wing billionaire. It's not even "blue hat Fox News;" it's soon to be just the same thing as regular Fox News.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] quams69@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Who cares? What are you missing out on, more shit tier journalism?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

With how MS Teams and now CNN have been reported here to be blocking Firefox, you know that Firefox is doing things right. If web giants are ganging up against it, it's all the more reason to switch to it to make a statement and prevent big tech from making privacy violation the norm.

load more comments
view more: next ›