UAE cybercrime law means sharing images or footage of war can bring jail, prison time and deportation
A British man is among 20 people who have been charged in the United Arab Emirates under cybercrime laws in connection with filming and posting material related to Iranian attacks on the country.
The 60-year-old man, understood to be a tourist who was visiting Dubai, was charged under a law that prohibits sharing material that could disturb public security.
The case was highlighted by Detained in Dubai, an organisation that provides legal assistance to individuals in the UAE.
Man I fucking hate the Guardian.
Is there no source people can share that doesn’t force you to accept cookies or subscribe?
firefox, reader mode
The full article still loads behind the banner
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/auto-reject-cookies/
This still won’t let you read articles on websites like that though.
I’m using brave browser on mobile and i can read this article fine
What do you mean? I must be doing something right because I click the link and get no cookie popup and can read it. Is there a paywall I’m missing?
There are.
They’ll all have heavy right wing bias though. Is that what you want?
Every single one that doesn’t flood me with a “cookies or subscribe” banner has a right wing bias?
Pretty much yes.
Why?
Because all the big media conglomerates are pushing right wing agenda. They don’t want/need your money that bad because they have the financial backing and those “news portals” are not a service, but a tool to spread propaganda.
On the other hand, true independent or left leaning publications don’t have the same financial backing, thus rely on subscriptions, ads and seemingly anti-consumer approaches just to stay afloat.
Remember: if it’s “free”, you’re the product.
PBS and Mother Jones both don’t.
Yes they have a donate button, what they don’t have is “turn off your adblocker or subscribe to keep reading this article”
Boh of them let you hit X on the donate and then keep reading.
I think your assessment is wrong.
PBS is a non-com non-profit.
Mother Jones literally runs a bi-monthly subscription magazine that funds their operations, aside from the ads on their website.
And both of them enjoy being in the US while The Guardian is a British publication, with more stringent requirements on financial steps, which is why they have to ask for permission to collect your information. Oh, and even then, their site manages to load a total of 3 trackers. Mother Jones is at 218 just loading the front page, both checked with domain level adblocking…
But hey, if you’d rather enjoy the mirage of not being datamined instead of being told upfront and offered to not be datamined for a little money… that’s on you buddy. But I doubt that unicorn will show up on your next birthday…
Ok, so there are left leaning options that don’t require you to turn off adblocker or subscribe to read the article.
Even on those sites I mentioned you can still decline the cookies and read the whole article.
or just use ublock and noscript? I was able to view the article without any of that. Not even sure how you use the internet without them but you do you.
I have ublock but not noscript
You said you’re able to view the article without either one? What browser do you use?
Looks like it does in fact work on desktop but I still have trouble getting it to on mobile. I’ll experiment around with it
I said (or thought I implied) I use both and I use Firefox.
Oh yeah you did I misread that my bad I was like “WHAT HOW”
haha all good. Also another thing that might have impacted my experience is I use Consent-O-Matic which helps eliminate most GDPR pop-ups which is half of what was annoying you; right? Which, FWIW, is why you get those cookie pop-ups most of the times. For right wrong or indifferent it’s an EU law and The Guardian follows it I guess. I mean sure it would be nice if they just didn’t try to collect shit cookies so they didn’t have to then ask you about it, but that’s what we got sooooo [sigh]