TWeaK
- 2 Posts
- 281 Comments
It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-
To summarise:
- What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
- My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.
Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.
Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.
Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.
To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.
If this is what I think it is, the hard drives are used data centre drives that are sold as “renewed”. They wipe the drives then use manufacturer’s tools to reset the clocks, effectively the same as winding back the mileage clock in a car. They are sold cheaper than new drives, but not really at a price that reflects their age and true used status.
I bought 4x 14TB drives of this type, pretty sure they were listed as new, although some show as used. 1 drive was DOA and I’m still waiting on the refund.
You can see tons of them on diskprices.com
Edit: oh wait, this is a different scam. This is like a combination of the classic size scam with the data centre scam. Fun!
It’s probably related to Amazon’s practice of binning all products with the same barcode together. So when someone sells something through Amazon their products get bundled with everyone else’s, and when someone buys they get one from the bundle. A counterfeiter basically poisons the stock, and you end up with counterfeiters selling legit products and legit sellers selling the counterfeit ones.
I’m in Europe, and I don’t use banking apps. For the most part anyway, one of my credit cards pissed me off by switching to app only, then eventually I relented with one bank because I wanted a 2nd account that required the app.
Banks either verify by SMS (lol) or provide a passkey fob.
GrapheneOS should provide some measure of protection. You can also perhaps disable some tracking features using something like Warden (requires root) - although this hasn’t been updated in years and probably misses stuff now.
Run Magisk in Zygisk mode with the deny list hiding itself from banking apps.
However I would advise not using the banking app if you can help it, they’re not clean. Hell, even accessing online banking via a website seems to require connections to google.com and gstatic.com to perform hidden captcha (you don’t have to do the picture thing but it still does the server side tracking).
Ty, but I think I’m just gonna switch from my dodgy Chinese Xiaomi phone to the refurbished Pixel 7 Pro I have. I mean, I’ve had it for like e months now, one of these days I will. Although, I really will miss my IR blaster, even though I hardly ever use it it’s nice to be able to change the TV in the pub lol
Edit: lmfao I just changed the TV 10m away, had Tour de France on, but now it’s basketball.
Ah wait, I should’ve read the article lol:
The law allows local authorities to name “designated providers” of a certain scale – currently only achieved by Apple and Google – and require those providers to do three things:
- Allow third-party app stores on their devices;
- Allow application developers to use third-party billing services;
- Enable users to change default settings with simple procedures, and offer choice screens for tools like browsers;
And it forbids them doing three more:
- Engage in any form of preferential treatment of their services over those of competitors in the display of search results without justifiable reason;
- Use acquired data about competing applications for their own applications;
- Prevent application developers from using features controlled by the OS with the same level of performance as the one used by Designated Providers.
So Google already allows 3rd party app stores and lots of settings (although these are always hit and miss, even in the custom ROM scene - I can’t get pocket detection right now and my phone keeps doing things in my pocket), but the 3rd party billing and choice screens applies to them.
Just as bad as pineapple on pizza.
Fuck you.
Pineapple contains an enzyme that dissolves flesh. When you eat raw pineapple, it eats you back. This is why your mouth goes kind of numb if you eat a lot of it.
However, with a little bit of heating the enzyme denatures and becomes nonfunctional. Thus, pineapple belongs on pizza.
a lot of people choose Reddit, or Facebook, or Instagram, or Snapchat, because the tradeoff is agreeable.
A lot of people choose those sites because they don’t understand the trade off, because the site is presented as “free of charge” while the exchange of your data is a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. It is NOT and exchange of data for access to the service, not at the point of sale, not the way they present it.
There is also a nuance in that you have to grant them rights to your work in order for them to legitimately host the material. This is essential, but they use it as an opportunity to claim far more rights than are necessary, without any fair exchange.
They still have the right to distribute it. It’s not like reddit, who not only claim the right but also apparently claim ownership of any content you publish there, while providing no consideration (payment) in return.
However, as you say, they have the right to deny you, and by copying you are subverting their rights. That’s still not theft, though, which is why copyright infringement is a separate offense.
Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil matter.
Depends on how you define stealing.
Stealing is theft, or in US law larceny, which is very clearly defined. Copying does not meet this definition, hence why copyright infringement is a separate offense.
Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil offense (except commercial copyright infringement, which can be reached if the value exceeds $1,000 - lobbyists worked hard to criminalise what normal citizens were doing and had success in this point, while they still get away with fleecing everyone, both artists and end users).
I think they’ve just defederated the community, so they can see users commenting from dbzer0 but can’t access !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com themselves.
But generally yes, federation is two way. It’s possible for one side to defederate while the other side to be federated, in which case users on one side could post comments but they’d only be visible to instances that are federated with them. Eg, if lemmy.world was not federated with dbzer0 at all, but it was still federated with lemmy.ml, then dbzer0 comments in lemmy.world would show up for dbzer0 and lemmy.ml users but not for lemmy.world.
A guy on the Lemmy.world post posted this: https://github.com/TxzK/yuzu
It is a hidden transaction. They try to argue it both ways, that it’s an exchange of access for data, but then they hide the data in the fine print. When you buy something, the price isn’t in the fine print, it’s front and centre. When you buy insurance, they have to provide a “key facts page” where they detail what you’re paying for in general terms. The key parts being exchanged are supposed to be at the forefront, not hidden in the terms and conditions.
People don’t understand the value of their product because businesses hide that part in the terms and conditions to inhibit their ability to properly assess the value.
In your analogy, you asked them to send your nuts and bolts for free. In exchange, they advertised stuff to you. Then they started collecting the addresses of your clients… that was not fine. Now, they’re throwing nuts and bolts from multiple people into a box and selling it as a “sampler kit”, nuts and bolts you did ask them to send for free.
I didn’t ask them, they advertised their service in bright lights saying it was free. Then, the fine print at the point of entry says they can pick the pockets of their guests.
You really are trying to advocate for the devil here, and I think if you take a step back you’ll see that you’re just parroting the same arguments they make. Such arguments have not been properly challenged yet, but if you stack them up against the core principles of contract law - through which all trade is conducted - they are clearly wrong.
The EU is trying to legitimise it, which is completely the wrong take.
I think one of either two courses of action should be taken by lawmakers. Either:
- Data collection must be made open, such that anyone can access the data (but processing of data can be proprietary), or,
- Websites should pay people for the data they take.
Data has value, it is completely unacceptable that this value is taken without consideration.
Class actions need to be made. Not just against AI, but Facebook, Google, Microsoft, banks… Basically anyone who collects data for profit while slipping it in as a secondary transaction in the terms and conditions, without providing any consideration.
The data brokerage industry is a $400bn industry, yet there are only 8bn people in the world. Even if we assume everyone is online and everyone’s data is of equal value (both are far from true), that means an individual’s data is worth at least $50 per year on the market. These are just people buying and selling data, and does not include companies that keep proprietary datasets and only sell advertising, or the value of peoples’ written works online (which is likely of even greater value). Businesses are now selling off our copyrighted work for far less than its worth, all the while not paying the creator their rightful dues.
It simply isn’t the case that data is traded for access to the website or service. That isn’t how the transaction is presented. Front and centre, the services are offered free of charge (or sometimes, eg with Microsoft, you already pay for the service) and then a second transaction is buried in the fine print in obscure language. The entire purpose of this is deception, so the user does not understand the value they are giving up, and so as to deny them a fair opportunity to assess any supposed value exchange - because it isn’t an exchange, you’re giving it up for free, just like they give you access for free. It’s two separate transactions deceptively run parallel.
You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. They steal the nuts and bolts we produce and then sell them on as their own products.
Edit: weird formatting issues from posting with low signal.
- TWeaK to
- •
- 8M
- •
- TWeaK to
English - •
- 1Y
- •
Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.