Sovereign Citizens, but for News

Cory Doctorow describes encountering a Los Angeles Times website gate that blocks an article until visitors click “Continue.” The gate claims that merely proceeding means accepting the paper’s terms, including mandatory arbitration, a class-action waiver, and extensive collection and use of personal data. Doctorow presents this as an especially alarming example of media companies using coercive, opaque online practices. His criticism comes amid broader grievances with the Times: he recounts unfair contract terms when he wrote reviews for it, raises concerns about owner Patrick Soon-Shiong’s editorial influence, and says the paper has reduced its reporting while charging more. He nonetheless recognizes that its journalists produce valuable work.

The central argument is that reading a news story cannot plausibly constitute informed consent to lengthy legal and privacy policies, and that the Times’s gate may violate California privacy protections against dark patterns. Doctorow warns that arbitration clauses can strip people of access to court, while the gate’s logic could even bind journalists who visit sites they investigate. He likens the tactic to sovereign-citizen claims that invented legal formulas can override ordinary law: both misrepresent how legal authority works. He suggests blocking the gate with an uBlock filter, filing a complaint with California’s privacy agency, and relying on the browser’s Global Privacy Control signal. He also notes that Times readers can opt out of arbitration by email within 30 days, and argues that companies should not be allowed to impose boilerplate terms they know to be unenforceable.