The last thing I wanted to do today was write about Threads. I haven't been using it much, and the few times I've tried, I haven't liked it much either. For one thing, they're allowing some of the most toxic ...
LGF’s policy is one of the most upfront and protective ones I’ve ever seen, second only to something like Pluralistic or other sites which simply don’t do ads. Maybe I’m missing something, but it looks like they make it clear they run Google Ads which require cookies, tell you how to opt out of the data collection on Google’s side, and promise not to leak your information to anyone except Google.
Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on the site.
Google’s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy.
We may contract with third-party service providers to assist us in better understanding our site visitors. These service providers are not permitted to use the information collected on our behalf except to help us conduct and improve our business.
We do not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer to outside parties your personally identifiable information. This does not include trusted third parties who assist us in operating our website, conducting our business, or servicing you, so long as those parties agree to keep this information confidential.
Whether you believe their privacy policy is a separate issue, but if you’re gonna pick out someone’s privacy policy to call cunty and complain about, this is about the last one I would do it to.
I upvoted it. I don’t think it’s literally just as bad as meta, but I still think it’s bad. Websites should let you opt out of cookies in one click. If they don’t, I prefer not to use them. I’m sure this website’s article is very important, but if they want their journalism to be read they should present it in a respectful manner. Otherwise I’m just reading the headline. I like the headline, it’s a good headline, it will inform my views going forward. I will not read the article and I will not give them ad traffic.
websites that serve users in the EU need to allow you to decline cookies, not just tell you about the fact they use them. this website is actually breaking EU privacy law, it’s definitely not what a European user would consider protective
It’s a requirement in the EU to be able to refuse all cookies within a couple of clicks. This website should either not load in the EU, or have a “refuse” button
I guess I can buy the idea that they’re breaking the letter of the EU law, but isn’t the EU cookie law widely acknowledged to be a fairly silly attempt to protect users’ privacy in terms of the reality of its implementation? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that’s just my impression.
The point that I’m making is that their policy seems like it’s actually constructed to protect its users’ privacy, which makes it an outlier in the positive direction and makes criticism of it on this basis come off and weird and mean-spirited and not accurate.
By way of contrasting example, I picked a random other story which you’d commented on recently without feeling the need to call them cunty, and saw this notice when it’s accessed from the EU:
Your Privacy Rights
Penske Media Corporation (PMC) uses first and third-party technologies to enable PMC and third-parties to collect information about you and your interactions with our sites and services (including clicks, cursor movements and screen recordings). Learn more HERE. By continuing to use our sites or services, you agree to our Terms of Use (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions) and Privacy Policy, which have recently changed.
… which sounds a lot more status-quo to how most modern web sites behave than does LGF’s notice.
Where? Totally separate from tracking your mouse clicks and browser fingerprint and whatever and reserving the right to sell it to third parties being a way bigger privacy violation than having no way to refuse site-operational cookies, I also don’t see any “reject all” button.
IDK; I tried it from VPN from Europe was what I meant by “when it’s accessed from the EU.” I honestly have no explanation why I didn’t see the prompt; my best guess is that either the geolocation or VPN fucked up, or that my adblocker removed a unified package that also included the prompt.
To search for ad settings I tried clicking AdChoices from the bottom navigation (from Europe) and it took me to a page that lectured me about how I should turn off my third-party cookie blocking, and when I tried from a different browser it succeeded (without having prompted me about cookies) and then announced that I had the opportunity to customize my ads experience from 111 different companies:
33Across
AcuityAds
Adbrain
Adelphic
Adform
AdGear Technologies
Adobe Marketing Cloud - Advertising Services
Adstra
Alphonso
Amazon Ad System
Amobee
Audiencerate
AuDigent
… and so on. I was also entertained by its summary of privacy policy within the State of California (“If you would like to opt out of the sale of this information, please complete this webform or call our automated line at (877) 365-3500.”)
I stand by my assessment of relative cuntiness of Variety compared with LGF saying hey we don’t sell your info but we do Google Ads, here’s how to disable their tracking of you if you want, fuck EU’s cookie laws and their weird little dialog box, have a good one.
The EU’s privacy laws don’t require a cookie dialog. It’d be legal and a way better user experience to make tracking opt-in and move the setting to some configuration menu somewhere else.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Who the fuck is upvoting this
LGF’s policy is one of the most upfront and protective ones I’ve ever seen, second only to something like Pluralistic or other sites which simply don’t do ads. Maybe I’m missing something, but it looks like they make it clear they run Google Ads which require cookies, tell you how to opt out of the data collection on Google’s side, and promise not to leak your information to anyone except Google.
Whether you believe their privacy policy is a separate issue, but if you’re gonna pick out someone’s privacy policy to call cunty and complain about, this is about the last one I would do it to.
I upvoted it. I don’t think it’s literally just as bad as meta, but I still think it’s bad. Websites should let you opt out of cookies in one click. If they don’t, I prefer not to use them. I’m sure this website’s article is very important, but if they want their journalism to be read they should present it in a respectful manner. Otherwise I’m just reading the headline. I like the headline, it’s a good headline, it will inform my views going forward. I will not read the article and I will not give them ad traffic.
websites that serve users in the EU need to allow you to decline cookies, not just tell you about the fact they use them. this website is actually breaking EU privacy law, it’s definitely not what a European user would consider protective
People with consumer rights
It’s a requirement in the EU to be able to refuse all cookies within a couple of clicks. This website should either not load in the EU, or have a “refuse” button
I guess I can buy the idea that they’re breaking the letter of the EU law, but isn’t the EU cookie law widely acknowledged to be a fairly silly attempt to protect users’ privacy in terms of the reality of its implementation? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that’s just my impression.
The point that I’m making is that their policy seems like it’s actually constructed to protect its users’ privacy, which makes it an outlier in the positive direction and makes criticism of it on this basis come off and weird and mean-spirited and not accurate.
By way of contrasting example, I picked a random other story which you’d commented on recently without feeling the need to call them cunty, and saw this notice when it’s accessed from the EU:
… which sounds a lot more status-quo to how most modern web sites behave than does LGF’s notice.
And that site has the “reject all” button right away like it should have.
Where? Totally separate from tracking your mouse clicks and browser fingerprint and whatever and reserving the right to sell it to third parties being a way bigger privacy violation than having no way to refuse site-operational cookies, I also don’t see any “reject all” button.
Definitely has the “reject all” button for me
Have you checked your consumer rights? 😂
No idea what you’re asking me
Seems like a jest about whether you live in EU or not.
If you’re not in EU and are not seeing a huge reject all button, it probably means that they are serving you a worse cookie popup because of location.
IDK; I tried it from VPN from Europe was what I meant by “when it’s accessed from the EU.” I honestly have no explanation why I didn’t see the prompt; my best guess is that either the geolocation or VPN fucked up, or that my adblocker removed a unified package that also included the prompt.
To search for ad settings I tried clicking AdChoices from the bottom navigation (from Europe) and it took me to a page that lectured me about how I should turn off my third-party cookie blocking, and when I tried from a different browser it succeeded (without having prompted me about cookies) and then announced that I had the opportunity to customize my ads experience from 111 different companies:
… and so on. I was also entertained by its summary of privacy policy within the State of California (“If you would like to opt out of the sale of this information, please complete this webform or call our automated line at (877) 365-3500.”)
I stand by my assessment of relative cuntiness of Variety compared with LGF saying hey we don’t sell your info but we do Google Ads, here’s how to disable their tracking of you if you want, fuck EU’s cookie laws and their weird little dialog box, have a good one.
The EU’s privacy laws don’t require a cookie dialog. It’d be legal and a way better user experience to make tracking opt-in and move the setting to some configuration menu somewhere else.