zlacker

The link should be changed anyway - that cookie control thing is the worst ever, offering no control.

>>Angost+(OP)
Perhaps, but given the number of articles on HN that are completely inaccessible due to being paywalled, that makes for a low bar of acceptance.

>>Angost+(OP)
The one at Reuters isn't that much better. If you refuse, Reuters will immediately forget your "Managed Consent" and slam you in the face again on your next visit.

I suspect they have no problem remembering your consent forever, it's just refusal that gets immediately forgotten.

>>Angost+(OP)
Techcrunch is stealing my back button too

>>jwr+G5
If you reject their use of cookies how are they supposed to remember your rejection the next time you visit?

>>jwr+G5
No offense, but are you sure you grok the whole 'cookie' concept?

>>tastyf+J9
If the law doesn't make a single exception so the webpage can store a boolean value into a cookie to know this user doesn't want to be bothered with any _other_ cookies the law is wrong.

>>mattig+vb
Any single exception can be a privacy attack surface. The law is correct.

>>mattig+vb
It does make exception for cookies used to make the site function.

>>bdcrav+e3
Inaccessible links aren't allowed on HN according to the FAQs [1].

Paywalled articles are only allowed if there is a known, easily-accessible workaround, and someone usually posts this in the comments.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html