Wow, an article about human rights lost credibility before I could even read the headline. They put up their mandatory (for their marketing) cookie banner, the "settings" page uses a dark pattern where the optional cookies are already off so clicking them would turn them on, and the only buttons are "Accept Recommended Cookies" or "X". Oh look, the article includes a section about our right to privacy, how compelling.
Until you click the "accept" button, you haven't agreed to accept any cookies, so if you instead click through to settings, it shows you the current state: cookies off. I think the toggles could be a bit clearer, but I don't really have a problem with it.
Having worked at AI (a long time ago), I can assure you this isn't some mastermind plot to sneak a couple of cookies onto the computers of the one or two people who click through to settings.
It's a common juxtaposition on topics like these and happens frequently on larger news sites too. Often the author is not in control of the actual websites.
That shouldn't be taking away from the messaging and certainly not a reason to lose credibility with something orthogonal.
You can track readers and the spread of your content AND decry the the unfair market powers and advantages big tech has simultaneously.
Big tech is shaping public discourse. Big tech is censoring public squares. Big tech is forcing us to continue buying new devices. Big tech is killing open standards and platforms. Big tech is hurting democracy. Big tech is enabling monitoring. Big tech is using societal scale antipatterns to generate more profits than most countries. Big tech is engaging in anti-worker practices ...
