OneWorld wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2026 5:11 pmWhat I find irksome is that we have an almost universally acknowledged concept of 'personal space' which for the main part is understood and respected. So why do web site creators/designers whatever have this notion that a person's digital person space can be ignored?
Largely because nobody seems to want to pay for anything any more, and businesses need a way to pay the bills. I don't mind cookies and ads if I'm getting something of worth* 'for free' — as long as there's the *option* to pay a reasonable fee for access that gets rid of them. But we digress...
* I'd say that, for example, the Guardian's independent journalism, like SOS's, is worth something (whatever your political viewpoint). But there are plenty whose content is simply vacuous clickbait, and even when accepting cookies you get plagued with all sorts of ads and pop-ups to the point that the content is pretty much indigestible. All the old local papers' websites now owned by MGN/Reach PLC, for instance...
I used to think that the Guardian's journalism was worth something so I used to contribute monthly to them. However, they decided that my contribution wasn't enough so they insisted that I accepted all their cookies AND pay if I wanted to continue to use their website.
In response, I stopped paying and stopped using their website. I now feel somewhat anti-Guardian these days because I feel that their journalists have dumbed down and are going for click-bait almost as much as all the Reach papers.
James and Matt, I agree wholeheartedly. I had considered the Guardian to be the last refuge of informed and balanced reportage. And the spread of Reach gives one the impression the local media is going to become monotonous.
Increasingly I found myself going to places I never thought I would, and to my surprise, the content is quite agreeable and comprehensive. I would be prepared to pay for a quality worth paying for but increasingly the agenda driven desperation to get clicks cannot justify the cost.
I am clinging on by the skin of my teeth to the BBC, there are highlights, such as the recent Winter Olympics, but the news content is teetering towards Fox News, certainly as regards it being partisan when at one time the BBC was at least considered by myself to be a beacon of quality un-biased reporting.
The Guardian is a curious case — a combination of real journalism, and vacuous opinion pieces. The latter aren't worth anything. But the former are, and it's one of the very few 'mainstream media' companies in the UK that still engages in this, and cooperates with other organisations on it internationally.
Anyway (1) yes, it's anyone's choice whether to accept/pay or not; but (2) I was really just answering the question about why companies feel the need to go down this road. The fact remains that, as with the music industry, when the audience expects the digital product to be free, old business models aren't viable, and businesses have to try something else.
