[DanWaterworth]

Off topic, and IANAL, but I believe this website breaks European law by refusing to serve the article to european residents who block cookies.

Under the ePrivacy legislation (and GDPR's redefinition of consent), you must obtain "freely given consent" to use cookies that are not necessary for the proper functioning of the site (and under this definition, analytics cookies are not necessary).

By refusing to serve the site to those who opt to block cookies, they ensure that consent can only be given under duress.

[dingo_bat]

> they ensure that consent can only be given under duress.

Not being able to read a random website is not "duress".

[conquistadog]

The randomness of the website is irrelevant to the requirement, at least as I understand it.

[dingo_bat]

Irrelevant to the main point. Since you're being childish I'll explain again.

Not being able to read a particular article or articles is not duress. Duress is if nautilus would threaten to send killer ninjas to your house of you won't accept the cookies.

[DanWaterworth]

You're right to complain that conquistadog's comment was irrelevant to your main point. It's frustrating when people miss what you are saying and get so hooked on trivialities. Incidentally, your nitpicking about my use of the word duress is also irrelevant.

Next, you call people childish, when you are acting immaturely. How does name-calling generally work out for you as a means for settling disagreements?

It also bugs me that you are not even technically correct. You see, I looked up the definition of duress before I posted. I am British, so I used the OED and it told me that in the legal sense of the word, duress is, "Constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act." Based on that definition, I don't think I could have picked a word that would better suit my intention.

[conquistadog]

No offense intended. By now your actual main point has been addressed, so I'll simply apologize for mistaking what your point was really about.