781–790 of 836 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you should be trusted because… You state a lot, but not once you give even the slightest proof to your claims. Call me doubtful at best.
If you expect a reply from the damage control team, you'll be disappointed.
I'm not seeing my spicy extensions (e.g. BPC), or the ones I use to block content on LinkedIn (ViolentMonkey, Ublock). So this isn't about detecting what they might deem as bad behaviour.
Nor could it be a fingerprinting thing, right? You'd want a full list for a full ID.
But they are checking out your religion. Deeply creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are transfering moral agency from yourself, to the government. Will you do the same for your kids ? WOuld you let the government decide for you whats right, and what's wrong ?
Regulation does not necessarily need to be about deciding what's right and what's wrong. It's about making life better for people. That's supposed to be why we have government. If they are not improving people's lives, why do we even have them? Too many people see the government doing nothing to improve their lives and think there's totally nothing wrong with that.
A few years ago, intentionally fingerprinting or tracking your users without disclosure was spyware and unethical. Alas, here we are. Anyway, what they're calling "spectroscopy", is a combination of extension probing and doing residue detection (looking for what extensions might leave behind in the DOM). An ad blocker is not necessarily equipped to help since the script is embedded with the application code. Since th…
Also the site doesn't even work well and is one of the main examples of "dark patterns" on the web [1].
Literally one of the worst companies and websites out there. Stallman has a summary of the additional reasons [2].
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/eff-court-accessing-pu...
[1] https://medium.com/@danrschlosser/linkedin-dark-patterns-3ae...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These two sentences highlight the underlying problem: Developers without an ethical backbone, or who are powerless to push back on unethical projects. What the article describes should not be "what many devs would land on" naturally. What many devs should land on is "scanning the user's browser in order to try to fingerprint him without consent is wrong and we cannot do it." I think using LinkedIn is pretty much ag…
The difference is between the data you give out voluntarily and what is taken from you without consent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…
>the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time, As a data point I, a technical person who tweaks his computer a lot, was against adblocking for moral reasons (as a part of perceived social contract, where internet is free because of ads). Only later I changed mi mind on this because I became more privacy aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So essentially a bunch of noise that didnt really mean anything concrete?
Mozilla backed down due to the backlash. It still means Mozilla is untrustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scanning your computer is an entirely different thing than scanning browser extensions. By maximizing the expectation via "Illegally searching your computer", the truth suddenly appears harmless.
Where do browser extensions exist? I've got a dreadful feeling they might be on my computer.