[y0ghur7_xxx]

"To make Medium work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use Medium, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy."

No Medium, I must NOT agree to your privacy policy and your cookie policy, because to use and share my data you need my FREE consent. AND you can NOT deny me reading an article without giving consent, because then the consent is not FREE, and it is NOT strictly necessary for the service.

Medium: either you allow me to read blog posts on your webserver without FORCING me to allow you to collect my data, or you don't. Choose. But stop fucking annoying me with lying banners.

[dpwm]

I think it's more likely that "to make Medium make money," they engage in tracking for advertising purposes.

Medium works perfectly well for my purposes without that banner being displayed. I can open up developer tools and delete that node.

If I don't click agree, does that mean that this information isn't collected? Because tracking cookies are still placed.

Now what is interesting is that I don't remember being asked for consent for them to place a cookie to log the number of articles I read in a month as part of their sign-up funnel.

[TeMPOraL]

> Now what is interesting is that I don't remember being asked for consent for them to place a cookie to log the number of articles I read in a month as part of their sign-up funnel.

They could probably make this compliant by storing the counter in your local storage and never sending it anywhere - just having a piece of JS that essentially does: if(Storage.getItem("visits") > 6) { displaySignnupPopup(); }

[netsharc]

Ah, when I used to bother with Proxomitron (https://www.proxomitron.info/), I could rewrite anything that went "over the wire" because it acts as a HTTP-proxy listening at localhost. I remember modifying Javascript lines so adding my own code was possible...

One could add an SSL library and basically MITM HTTPS connections, but I never tried that.

[chopin]

I block JS wherever I can, though.

[dmortin]

> AND you can NOT deny me reading an article without giving consent

They can't, but they can, for example, ask for a fee to read the article. They don't deny you reading it, but they don't have to give it to you for free either.

Either you share your data, so they can make money to operate the site, or you don't, but then the content is not free.

I expect some sites will choose this route.

[y0ghur7_xxx]

> They can't, but they can, for example, ask for a fee to read the article. They don't deny you reading it, but they don't have to give it to you for free either.

Of course they can charge a fee. They should.

> Either you share your data, so they can make money to operate the site, or you don't, but then the content is not free.

No. My data is not a commodity exchange. The GDPR makes that VERY clear. I can not pay with my data. Full stop. There is money for that.

[dmortin]

You can pay with your data if you consent to it. It's your data, your choice. But if you don't consent then prepare your credit card for payment.

Most people then will choose the free version.

[svalorzen]

As y0ghur7_xxx is saying, you cannot pay with your data, just as you cannot take a loan with an interest rate of 1000%, since that would be usury. Even if you signed a contract agreeing to such terms, they don't count as they are not legal.

Contracts don't make laws. Laws make laws. You cannot pay with your data.

[y0ghur7_xxx]

> You can pay with your data if you consent to it.

No I can not. I can pay with money. User data is not money.

[RugnirViking]

You are wrong. The entire point of the law is to stop this being an option.

[megaman22]

Why is it a problem that you have to agree to be monetized to read a stupid blog post? If you don't like those terms, go read something else. If you refuse their terms, it seems obvious to me that they should be able to refuse to serve you. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this sounds like asking for a free lunch.

[y0ghur7_xxx]

> Why is it a problem that you have to agree to be monetized to read a stupid blog post?

Do you want my opinion or what the gdpr says?

My opinion is that my data is not a commodity exchange. We (I) usually use money for that.

The gdpr says

"When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract."

So they can politely ask me for my data to read the blog post, and I can politely refuse to give it to them. And if my data is not necessary for letting me read the blog post (it is not) then they have to let me read it anyway.

> If you don't like those terms, go read something else.

That is what I did. I left the site. But this is not what I am angry about. They are lying by saying that i MUST consent to their terms.

> If you refuse their terms, it seems obvious to me that they should be able to refuse to serve you. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this sounds like asking for a free lunch.

User data is not money. User data is user data. I am not asking for free lunch.

[balfirevic]

> My opinion is that my data is not a commodity exchange. We (I) usually use money for that.

So, you decline the exchange (as you did).

Why should the law forbid me from making such exchange, if I want to?