Why won't you let them protect your privacy???
To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:
They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you're blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you're blocking it)?
Weird thing. Doubt there'd be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that's of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it's an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.
Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what's allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like
- browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user's preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
- browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
- regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
- regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
- any combination or all of the above
Then why can over 100,000 other sites show their cookie banners as required by GDPR while Firefox + unlock origin is active, but somehow one of the largest media companies in America "just can't do it" without disabling your ad-blocker?
If they really couldn't do it, they would do like Home Depot did and block anyone in europe from accessing their site.
This is not about GDPR at all! This is exclusively about forcing you to disable your ad-blocker so they can make more money from offering a bad browsing experience.
They offered it but you just didn't see it because blocked, so there.
INVADING YOUR PRIVACY IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY
LET US IN!!!
"We're tracking you for your privacy 🙄
In this case no not really.
The cookie you might be using is going to be storage that's going to contain your preferences. Assuming they actually applied by the regulations they claim to then that cookie actually won't be used to track you it will simply be used for the intended purpose of cookies in the first place.
Not that I agree with their approach but but they are essentially saying here is that since there is no way to save your privacy preferences they are not in compliance with the law by ensuring that you have set your privacy preferences. Which it's kind of bullshit, dick move on their part.
It's the most ironic part of GDPR. To avoid annoying the user, you have to set a cookie to remember that they don't want you using cookies.
We should've encouraged everyone to re-implement the "DNT" request header, or something similar. Much simpler for the site owners/devs, much more convenient for end-users.
“Protect your privacy” is literally why we use uBO…
"Protect your privacy from us"
you blocked the stuff we need to protect your privacy
holy shit fuck you you lying fuck
They could be telling the truth... It's possible that OP is in Europe and the ad blocker is blocking a GDPR cookie consent notice.
The message explicitly mentions EasyList Cookie, which is described like this on https://easylist.to/:
EasyList Cookie List blocks cookies banners, GDPR overlay windows and other privacy-related notices.
Edit: I'm not agreeing with what they're doing. I'm just saying that the message may be accurate. Having said that, maybe blocking a cookie banner should count as an opt-out, so they shouldn't show this notice and instead just automatically reject the cookies. I'm not sure if the law is clear around this, though.
If you want to opt-out of tracking cookies, consent-o-matic will likely work better. It automatically clicks the right buttons in the consent notice for you.
Edit 2: The law seems unclear about what to do if the consent notice is blocked by the viewer's browser (and thus they can neither accept nor reject cookies), so maybe blocking access to the site is likely the safest approach for them to take.
Imagining a returning user who previously consented. If non essential cookies changed since their last visit, that user needs to consent again. But in scenario, just auto opt them out? I’m weirdly on the fence between this might be a reasonable block or a violation of GDPR for denying access to users who do not provide consent.
I've had it happen to me for a week or two now. US based. I always just figure if a site doesn't work with my blockers, then I really don't need to see it.
The law is done dumb. They should update it to say "the banner must always have a "reject all" button which rejects everything (including the legitimate interest) on it and it must not be hidden inside any further clicks"
I'm sick of having to search for that button under two sub menus or having to uncheck 20 check boxes. And what the hell is even "legitimate interest"? There's nothing legitimate about any tracking at all. This phrase really offends me every time I read it.
No one has mentioned the good version of that site, https://lite.cnn.com -- no ads, no bloat, works fine with UBO.
TIL!
and it's mobile-friendly and distraction-free too
Thank you for this. Wow, such an improvement!
That’s amazing!
Oh my god, YES
This is awesome. I'm wondering if other companies have similar versions of their site.
Try text.npr.org. I think there a few more but that's the one I remember.
CNN: We can’t ask if you want to allow cookies because you’re blocking everything
Me: Which means I don’t want you to……….?
CNN: No idea, we have to ask you.
Me: I’m so strict you can’t even ask meaning………?
CNN: You….
Me: Yes?
CNN: Uh……….. don’t want…..
Me: Yesssss………
CNN: To miss out on us asking you.
Thos but unironically. GDPR
I just opened CNN on firefox with unblock origin on both mobile and desktop without issue.
I wonder if it has to do with the region you try to load it from. The message in the screenshot seems to indicate that it might.
could be that there's been an update to the filters to deal with this issue?
I can open CNN too, but once i click on an article I get the page OP has..
seconded the success.
Same, works fine. But I don't block cookie popups, I have consentomatic handle them instead, plus Firefox is getting that built-in, anyways.
I'm not experiencing any of this, but my setup is insane at this point. Ublock origin with a custom bypass paywalls filter list and noscript enabled... no ads... no blocks... Just content. Using mull on android with mullvad DNS.
Windows/android?
You think they might have updated something in response to backlash...? I had thirty-five blocked elements with Firefox and UBO. Fuck CNN...
What if you refresh the page?
I had that with "I don't care about cookies" add-on.
I disabled it and then it blocked me for being from Europe. 🤷♂️
serves you right, you filthy European! /s
why comply with reasonable European laws when you can just make a malicious site and block European connections
Honestly CNN isn't great and this screen is just a reminder to go somewhere else.
I just hope this isn't a trend.
Sadly, it is a trend.
They’re doing you a favor
I block CNN by not visiting their website.
The only CNN worth anything is CNN International, and that still works fine with all ad blockers raised. But even CNN International started pulling the same stunt, it's not remotely good enough that I would miss it either.
CNN’s docuseries are actually incredible, but they air on Max anyway.
If someone's savy enough for ublock I'm sure they're savy enough to tell CNN to get fucked
Funny... My company (over 100k employees worldwide) is blocking CNN as a security risk...
Do you see a similar message for other news and social media sites? My gut tells me that it's just one of many blocklists added to your company's firewall but they don't have a specific message for "blocked because not work related".
I'm getting these messages occasionally, but usually they make sense, such as when I go to online gaming sites or torrenting portals. Didn't try porn - don't want a call from HR. In general, our IT policies are fairly sensible; this is one of the very few outliers.
Probably just a blanket block of all msm
All other MSM, even some more questionable like The Sun or Fox News, works fine. CNN is the only one blocked.
Well, guess we won't visit CNN anymore 🤷
required components that protect your privacy
Talk about doublespeak. Double-plus-good, eh?
so? nothing worth reading there anyway.
You genuinely not see the problem here?
I'm using Firefox with uBlock Origin and cnn.com loads for me without any issues.
I tried after reading this, can confirm that it works fine for me too with FF and UBO.
Says you're using Brave...
Yeah I'm using Firefox with ubo and was not blocked when I visited cnn.com
Just visited in Brave and not getting any warnings on desktop
Same here
I'll give them benefit of the doubt and assume they're using the brave user agent in Firefox.
If that's the case the solution is simple, switch back to Firefox user agent. Or use Chrome as your user agent, you can whitelist specific sites to use any user agent you want
Also fuck that goddamn Admiral antiadblock.
Ublock Origin usually blocks Admiral. If it isn’t, you can submit an issue in GitHub and they’ll update.
For me on Android Vivaldi Browser doesn't block Admiral but Iceraven with FF's uBlock Origin plugin does.
I will never not block ads, I gave them a chance
Post title says Firefox, but the screenshot is saying Brave. 🤔
I mean... It could just hard coded example text as they might have seen most people with that blocked used Brave? Haven't test it tbh.
I got the same message on iOS Safari with no special config or UA switching (just an ad-blocker). I figure it’s a badly implemented feature. But holy shit I thought the browser wars settled out a long time ago and we had decent standards in place, guess we’re regressing back 20 years though.
Maybe a changed user agent?
If CNN wants me to use their website they need to sign a contract that says they need to eat my shit with a spoon. Legal repercussions if they violate.
Ironically, that message can only be shown if they are invading your privacy.
Hold on, we need to invade your privacy so we can better protect your privacy.
This is Beyond "Can I interest you in some Tracking cookies ?" , this is "You MF better put these cookies down your throat or I will shove them up your Ass".
Good. Stop going there. But also, make sure your lists are up to date. The anti-annoying block list usually blocks these scripts from executing.
Heh, we had this problem with a work product a month ago. it's the suppress cookie popups feature.
Legislation in some areas requires people to opt in to cookies, but add blockers block the banner pop, so from a legal compliance standard they're not in compliance even though it's something the users are doing.
The cookie blockers automatically decline cookie consent with the minimum possible cookies.
If your site is GDPR compliant it must respect the consent triggers by the extension as the consent is identical to if a human user correctly filled out the cookie form to acknowledge only the minimum required cookies.
CNN in the OP is just gaslighting the user here.
How would blocking the pop-up be violating the law, though? If the pop-up doesn't show, you're not able to agree to cookies. You don't provide your explicit consent, therefore the website must assume you don't want to be tracked. The presence of the pop-up shouldn't be changing anything for people not willing to opt in, should it?
Or perhaps they're self-aware and have set it up to only opt you out by filling out the form, which you can't do if it isn't there. Or they just want you to agree to those "required" cookies? I don't know.
Blocking the pop-up isn't violating the law. Nevertheless we needed the cookie for the login. If we didn't get you to authorize the cookie you really had no business in the app because it would not work for you. It was a bad design but it was third party.
But we couldn't even pop that up because the browsers just tried to slide by any notifications about cookies
Is that actually true or is that just their legal team playing it overly safe? Because if it is true that's incredibly stupid.
Not just the legal team. Every time there's new legislation like this, a new set of contractors pop up offering to walk your company through what it needs to do to be compliant. Nobody is quite sure what the limits are--and nobody will for several years until court precedents work out the issues--so those contractors are going to tell you to assume the worst case interpretation.
PCI Compliance (technically a contractual obligation rather than legal), Sarbanes-Oxley, and GDPR were good things, but all of them spawned a sub-industry of grifters.
It sounds like legal teams playing it safe. Who would go to court over such a thing?
They also blocks you with the same message if you want to read an article about Bibi from Austria. If you try with the VPN, they'll let you read it. The article: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/snyder-netanyahu-holocaust-remarks/index.html
Just switched back to FF for the first time in years. Have to say, it's helping me de-google quite quickly because they're such bastards about playing nice with other browsers.
Works fine for me with firefox and Ublock. What does give me this exact message though is a extention called IDontCareAboutCookies
Ngl, that's a blessing in disguise
Who cares? What are you missing out on, more shit tier journalism?
Maybe your dead brother cares
With how MS Teams and now CNN have been reported here to be blocking Firefox, you know that Firefox is doing things right. If web giants are ganging up against it, it's all the more reason to switch to it to make a statement and prevent big tech from making privacy violation the norm.
CNN is blue hat fox news
CNN got bought out by a right-wing billionaire. It's not even "blue hat Fox News;" it's soon to be just the same thing as regular Fox News.
I didn't know CNN was supporting a fascist and actively trying to undermine our democracy. Oh wait.
capitalism is incompatible with democracy, and CNN is pro-capitalist.
No issue here.
Firefox + Ublock Origin.
Just updated my lists and working fine. Too bad im not reading CNN anymore though
Edit: Nvm it didn't work as expected
TBH There should be more RSS feeds and more work around them (RSS readers are still good tho) so that news are delivered without paywalls and in a user friendly way
I've been getting back on the RSS train in the past year or two, after dropping off when I started getting all of my news on Twitter. After that was proven to be a terrible idea, I discovered that my Feedly account was still there waiting for me. I'll be self-hosting something else soon, but my post-Twitter, federated, RSS-driven media consumption has so far given me a lot more control.
Not blocked for me on Firefox with no script and ublock.
Bye Felicia
there's that one US medical website that often comes up at the top of google searches and when you select "only necessary cookies" it tells you to fuck off basically lmao, something about "european privacy" or something
basically their web developers can't be arsed to abide by gdpr
It's not the web developers making the decisions, but marketing and management. Otherwise websites would respect "do not track", or have an "opt out of all cookies" button instead of an "accept all cookies" button.
CNN has been shit since 10 years ago. Their apogee was the first Gulf War and it has been down hill since then. Unironically, go to Tiktok if you want the latest happenings, usually right as it happens by the people it is happening to.
Excuse me. Do you even know what Tiktok is?
It also blocked me on safari without any ad blockers 💀
"prevent this site from implementing required components that PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY"
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....
They're talking about GDPR cookie consent notices, which let you opt-out of advertising cookies and only accept required cookies (for user session, so that it can tell you're logged in). The ad blocker is blocking the consent notice itself.
"opt out" I don't trust their implementation,
Change your Useragent, none of these coders have been smart enough to code an ACTUAL DRM and have just decided to go:
"herrr, derrrrr , not CHROME??..bad :(" while it's just reading a very easily changed string.
You want to send people back into an era without fingerprinting FEDS/GOOGLE?
Because you're doing a wonderful job pushing users into tools typically used for anonymity/fraud ;).
This is how you get less perceived Firefox marketshare and thus even more discrimination against it in the long run.
Filter it to specific websites then. Most of (if not all) extensions have this feature.
It's literally talking about the cookie blocker specifically though, not the adblocker itself
I can open CNN without any troubles 🤔
NoScript generally helps this. No JS means no uBo detection.
Use consent-o-matic instead of ublock's cookie list, much cleaner and works perfectly fine.
That extension is garbage i would rather eat shit
It’s a bullshit excuse to probably hobble archiving.
Using FF and uBo, confirmed user agent to be Mozilla Firefox.
This url (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/business/second-teen-worker-killed-marc-jac-poultry-dol-investigation/index.html) does not work. Try going to https://edition.cnn.com and it will work, clicking any article seems to bring up the issue.
The first link works fine for me on mobile (Android, FF beta, uBo).
I have the same problem on my phone. Could be that my vpn has an ad blocker (like pi hole), I use it on phone and PC.
Strange, the first link works for me on desktop FF.
No great loss. CNN is total trash now.
Works for me.
You're not missing much:
CNN Runs Gaza Coverage Past Jerusalem Team Operating Under Shadow of IDF Censor
What region are you trying to access it from?
Eu
I'm able to connect to and use cnn's website from Berlin using Firefox with uBlock and NoScript.
Still kinda funny that they'd ask you to lower your defenses in order to "protect" you.
For someone interested in trying it out, it happened to me with the following article: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/japan-plane-american-passenger-bite-intl-hnk/index.html
It works at first, but if i refresh the page, it gets redirected to the block pave
Just tried using only Firefox and uBO, that link and the main page load correctly first time and on refresh. Checked with default filters only and default plus annoyances and both were fine. Do you have any other ad blocker / content filter running at the same time?
I still use chrome for the moment with AdAway on mobile, adblock on PC... I accidentally went to CNN the other day with adblock turned off... my God, have you seen it lately? It's a god damn hell scape.
CNN's website is a hellscape without adblock.
Ok see you never then cnn lol
CNN is mostly RW trash now so, why bother.
LIARS
Yea, cnn.com loads just fine on my install of Firefox with uBo. Seems like a you problem.
Its probably a regional problem
Oh yeah, OP just totally made all of this up. Mhmm.
See you in gymnastics!
Do you know EU law GDPR requires precisely that?
No, it doesn't. The banner is only needed for you to accept the cookies. It's completely fine to just block the banners or not show them, just the user can't accept the cookies, so CNN can't use them.
CNN would rather block the user than lose out on the chance to save those cookies.
What exactly does the Cookie Law require?
The Cookie Law requires users’ informed consent before storing or accessing information on user’s devices.
This means that if you use cookies you must:
inform your users that your site/app (or any third-party service used by your site/app) uses cookies;
explain, in a clear and comprehensive manner, how cookies work and what you use them for;
obtain informed consent prior to the storing of those cookies on the user’s device.
In practice, you’ll need to show a cookie banner (also called cookie notice) upon the user’s first visit, implement a cookie policy and allow the user to provide consent – unless your website uses solely exempt cookies, which is highly unlikely. Prior to consent, no cookies — except for those exempt — should run or be installed.
You’ll need to show a cookie banner upon the user’s first visit, implement a cookie policy and allow the user to provide consent. Prior to consent, no cookies — except for exempt cookies — should be run or installed
https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/5525-cookies-gdpr-requirements
