501–510 of 525 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. Most advertising isn't individually posted to each address because that's expensive - they hire their own guy, who isn't a postal worker, to go around and put it in everyone's mailbox. It's like paying one cent per email to prove it isn't spam.
In the US it's illegal for someone who's not a postal worker to put things in your mailbox for exactly this kind of reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers can literally chose not to store cookies... There is no need to bring trust in the equation.
Can browsers know which cookies are necessary for a site functioning, logins, etc and which are for tracking, ads etc? There are many ways one can eg block third party cookies and that helps and rarely causes issues, but tracking can also be done with first party cookies, let alone fingerprinting. For example, firefox's "strict tracking protection" setting also breaks a bunch of websites.
Midori is an example for a graphical one, while there is Lynx for the terminal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly necessary cookies don’t require explicit consent, and generally can’t be rejected. Functional cookies don’t require additional explicit consent if you actually use that function. “Performance” actually refers to analytics, probably rebranded because users did not want it. Making you think they had to ask for the reasonable cookies, too, is the whole trick being pulled here.
> Functional cookies don’t require additional explicit consent if you actually use that function. To not be indistinguishable from "strictly necessary" there would have to be a case where the "functional cookie" actually required consent, right? What case is that and how would you solicit that consent other than some kind of cookie banner? > “Performance” actually refers to analytics, probably rebranded because users…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As always, downvoting me doesn't change the legality of those banners. The law clearly states the "deny all" button must be as prominent as the accept button, and the banners employ all sort of dark patterns.
I don't think 'the law' does clearly state that, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and honestly it's a point of pedantry, the enforcement indicates that you're right about the actual expectation, and definitely you're right about the actual usage.
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/edpb_2023011...
Also the law doesn't require anything to be done by the user to reject cookies, to begin with, as that is the default state. I often just delete the cookie dialog from the DOM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come up with a few categories and let the browser/OS decide. Websites by default are ‘true’ for every category, unless they specify. Categories are, for example of some: nudity, sexual, violence, etc. It doesn’t have to be perfect but sites will have to err on the side of caution. We could even create an html tag for example, and the browser can simply not render that portion of the page of the user has that type dis…
A header is probably better than a tag. The goal should be to satisfy most reasonable governments. A neutral technical standard and an international organization to maintain the the ontology for content descriptors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modifi…
I know that, most technical people know it, but I refuse to call it "GNU/Linux" because that's a dumb name and Richard Stallman is so over the top pedantic to constantly insist on it.
Like, I'm glad for the solid kernel, but it's just not what I interface with on a daily basis. Same that I'm glad the car engine is running fine, but I care about the car, not the engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No such mandates should take place at all.
I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe. but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1st amendment. There's a long history of carve outs around commercial products. But, if Linux devs (who aren't selling anything) went to the mat against this law, the government of California would lose and (at least part of) their law would be struck down.
Kids deserve free speech. There is no valid reason to deny access to them to social networks. First amendment is being breached here.