The NYT has a financial interest in the tech companies that it is writing about; they are responsible for much of its online revenue. In no other domain would the editors consider it okay to not disclose the relationship, but the tracking is so pervasive no one sees it anymore
-
-
Show this thread
-
The real lesson here is that it was a terrible mistake for the Times to get rid of their Public Editor back in 2017.
Show this thread -
Previously: Google CEO writes an op-ed piece in the Times, which serves undisclosed Google tracking scripts:https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1126130280916561923 …
Show this thread -
Previously: NYT covers political lobbying by the tech giants, while serving readers undisclosed tracking scripts that show those giants exactly who read the article, and when:https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1136614331196628993 …
Show this thread -
And of course, the whole Privacy Project page is a privacy trainwreck. I get why this happened, but the NYT needs to prominently disclose the conflict of interest. Done right, this would help their coverage of privacy, not hinder it.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1116354502032932865 …
Show this thread -
That
@nytimes article even contains code to see if the reader is subject to the GDPR, so they can serve non-invasive advertising. THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGYpic.twitter.com/CIE4oXuhP0
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
disable JavaScript and you'll be able to browse nytimes in incognito mode
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
it also seems they include their sourcemaps lmao
-
Hosts.txt might help
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.