Mildly Infuriating

Solution: don't read that shitrag. It was always a waste of paper, now it is a waste of bandwidth as well.

How is this even legal?

Because Brits voted Brrrrexit?

How is that not extortion?

I am really fucking sick and tired of every goddamn company thinking they're entitled to colonize my property and hack it to serve them instead of me.

My computer is my property, you fascist fucks, not yours, and my actual property rights trump your Imaginary "Property" "rights" (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) every single time and in every single circumstance!

Jokes on you, to remember your choice for no coockies they have to use a cookie.

Ublock origins -> select element -> remove

Or auto accept/refuse cookies with extension, then auto delete cookies for all but approved sites when closing browser.

Bild is doing this shit too.

When I was working on data protection issues, I asked a specialist lawyer more than two years ago how something like this could be reconciled with the GDPR. He couldn't answer the question, but said that with the best will in the world he couldn't imagine that this would be OK under data protection law. Nevertheless, this approach is now common practice for the vast majority of news sites in Europe and also in the EU, which has strict regulations regarding tracking, at least in theory. I still don't know the legal details, but at least I know that there are no serious penalties whatsoever if there is no distortion of competition involved - and since none of the news companies would sue another in this matter, this has become common practice even in the EU.

bypass paywalls clean?

Not any factor lotion will protect your mental health from "the Sun" o_O

The red flag there in the screenshot shows you the name of the publication you should avoid using or visiting.

• Just set up your browser to delete cookies on exit. If you want, just have it delete them from specifically that site. The entire debate over whether-or-not a site sets a cookie seems to me to be pretty pointless. If a site can set cookies, then some bad actor will. The dialogs that sites put up talking about it are pointless. No solution other than having your browser not retain them regardless of what a site wants to do is going to be a reliable solution. Not policies, not laws.

  I have my browser delete all cookies on exit. I have a very short whitelist of sites that I permit to keep cookies and track me. Every one of those is one that I need to log in to use anyway -- so I could be tracked with or without a cookie -- and the only thing the cookie does is buys me not needing to log in every time, doesn't have privacy implications.

• Paying doesn't buy you anything unless they offer a no-log, no-data-mining policy. If you log in to use the site, then they can track you anyway via the credentials you use.

• They're not imposing it on you. They're offering you a service that costs them money. They give you news, you give them money or data. If you don't want to do that deal, there's a whole Internet out there. Don't go to that particular site. There are lots of websites out there, many of which offer the same deal. Getting upset that somewhere on the Internet, someone is offering a deal that you don't want seems pointless.

  If you want to have some kind of tax-funded news site, go advocate for that. Yelling at them isn't going to get you there.

  If you want to just view news done by volunteers, something like WikiNews, then go visit those sites instead. Maybe contribute work as well. I don't think that volunteer news is going to realistically compete with commercial news, but hey, there was also a point when people thought the same thing about volunteer-run encyclopedias, so maybe it'll get there.

I'll also add that I'm going to be generous to the EU and assume that the goal of their "cookie warning" law, which is why many European websites show these, was to raise awareness of cookies and privacy implications by having warnings plastered all over, so that it starts people thinking about privacy. Because if the goal was actually to let people avoid cookies, then it is costly, disruptive and wildly ineffectual compared to just setting a setting in the browser, makes actually having the browser delete cookies more-annoying, and duplicates a browser-side standard, P3P, that already accomplished something similar, and was just all around a really bad law.

OP, The Sun is one of the trashiest rags on the face of this Earth. Your best option regardless of their ad practices was always to stay well away from them.

private session by default and using start page as your search engine with Anonymous View to search the pages saves the cookies but they are worthless one you leave the site

It's legal because the Sun is a private company and they have the right to charge you to not datamine you. It's not a public service and they're not the only source of news out there, so you have a choice: if you don't like it, get your news elsewhere.

What's the problem exactly?