91–100 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is most sites use cookies to click on the "this site uses cookies" and as I block them I get the same message ad-infinitum on every fucking site... and I'm in NZ NOT the EU
How do you propose the website remembers your preference except through the use of a cookie? Cookies are the only way to keep client side state in a cross browser way. Keep in mind, cookies for non tracking purpose are allowed under the cookie law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is most sites use cookies to click on the "this site uses cookies" and as I block them I get the same message ad-infinitum on every fucking site... and I'm in NZ NOT the EU
How do you propose the website remembers your preference except through the use of a cookie? Cookies are the only way to keep client side state in a cross browser way. Keep in mind, cookies for non tracking purpose are allowed under the cookie law.
With the Great Firewall in China and Regressive laws in the EU, the US feels like the only place where users have the freedom to choose what their internet should be. Unfortunately, they have to deal with clicking on cookie notices, GDPR and now this.
This is not against companies, it's for people. Companies should have had these information in the first place, now they just need to display it to the user but I guess thats too much to ask.
Im all against filters but cookie notices and GDPR are consumer friendly laws which I like a lot.
With the Great Firewall in China and Regressive laws in the EU, the US feels like the only place where users have the freedom to choose what their internet should be. Unfortunately, they have to deal with clicking on cookie notices, GDPR and now this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is most sites use cookies to click on the "this site uses cookies" and as I block them I get the same message ad-infinitum on every fucking site... and I'm in NZ NOT the EU
Blame the web devs and their bad implementation of it. It’s really not that hard to get right (unless of course you don’t really want to comply).
But how does one avoid asking every time when cookies are blocked? What other implementation option is possible? This is what cookies are for.
You guys might be interested in my startup. We are going to provide a copyright content registration service as well as a vetting service for 3rd parties to upload user posts which are then scanned against the registered content.
I suspect an entity like Google could offer such a service, based on its enormous reach, compute resources, and a similar system already implemented for YouTube. Played right, this could offset some lost ad revenue.
I tend to put GDPR and this Copyright bill in different camps. The copyright bill is insane. GDPR is... also a bit insane, but the hard parts shine light on what we probably should have been doing which are now hard to do because we've spent so long ignoring the ethical elephant in the room. GDPR is very far from perfect, but I think it's still directionally good. The copyright bill is just bad.
GDPR is very good in fact. If you read through it as a person, it is basically the way we should have operated from the start. Reading it while wearing the hat of my role in my company, I can see all the points where we are collecting data without a well defined process and clear understanding from the end users. It is hard to fix this, but it is for my own good as a person.
If you ask for your data to be deleted does that include your address in my contacts? Does it include your messages to me? Does it include your posts that appeared on my feed?
In the physical world all of those would be mine. Addresses: It would be my paper address book with your address written in it. Email: would paper letters you sent to me that I keep in my files. Your posts in my feed would be postcards I received from you keep in a scrapbook or shoebox.
It's not clear to me how those are handled by the GDPR and at what point things sent digitally from you to me end being my property and no longer your property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is outright ridiculous. There should be a level of human intervention to determine okay this cant be a damn copyright issue this AI is coocoo.
Letting black box "AI" that is often incorrect run wild is way less expensive than having a human intervene to review flagged videos. Hence the rise of machine learning algorithms that can do all kinds of neat things, but fail hard on the plethora of edge cases that exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they do understand exactly what is going on but they know that upload filters are faulty almost always in favor of people with money. Upload filters like ones on youtube are super biased towards taking down anything that looks like copyrighted content but they also take out a load of legitimate content. Its now up to the content owner to prove that their content was fair use or that its not even the same thin…
> Upload filters like ones on youtube are super biased towards taking down anything that looks like copyrighted content Youtube's filter removed the audio track from a video of mine that was essentially silent to start with. There was certainly no music, TV, movie, etc... in the background.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By freedom, I assume you are a big supporter of the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" and can't wait until you can choose to add the YouTube or Netflix packages to your internet connection for $20/mo each.
The sort of freedom referred to has nothing to do with a zero-price. It has to do with the ability of two consenting adults (or we can say "willing parties" if you want) to enter into a transaction to exchange goods or services, or proxies (like dollars). The opposite of such a freedom is not that one party chooses to charge for some of its services, but that one party is prevented from offering such a service.