Comment on Meta cancelled climate change ads, then cancelled a local newspaper that reported about the ads, then a blogger who reported on the paper's cancellation, and now has escalated to blocking all of LGF for posting the blogger's story

Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  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.

  source

  • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Who the fuck is upvoting this

    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

    source

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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?

      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.

      source

      • TeNppa@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And that site has the “reject all” button right away like it should have.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • anlumo@feddit.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source
  • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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 the I would consider protective

    source
  • exocrinous@startrek.website ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “They’re all just as bad as meta”

  Lol if only you knew what meta have and do with that data

  source

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Hi, I'm Lemmy BadTakes! You may remember me from such movies as "Biden's exactly as bad as Trump" and "Sure Russia's a one-party state where challenging the leader means literal death, but the United States has racist police and wealth inequality, which is actually far worse!"

    source
• survivalmachine@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If you continue using our website, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website.

  You literally have an “x” button in the top-right of your web browser (or similar exit feature if you’ve disabled or moved that).

  source

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Or, you can use a browser or plugin which blocks a fairly-accurate blacklist of ad tracking cookies, and not involve the sites' dubious assurances that they'll respect your requests for privacy into the equation at all. That seems like a way, way better way. If you want to go past that I would just configure the browser to reject cookies except from a whitelist of sites you trust, and still not involve the site's assurances into it.

    I think the EU overall does a great job at doing consumer protection and I think the "you gotta have a cookie dialog" is one isolated aspect where the law does nothing but create hassle for everyone involved, but I don't really know; that's just my uninformed opinion.

    source

    • exocrinous@startrek.website ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh, here we go. “Companies have no responsibility to use safe practices, every user should just go to the trouble of installing special tools to personally opt out of data mining.”

      Do you know what the danger of data mining actually is? It’s not that companies will advertise the perfect bra for your cup size. It’s that they’ll use it to influence politics. You might not know this, but Meta has actually been implicated in dangerous use of data alongside an organisation called Cambridge Analytica in experiments designed to influence elections. They may have had a hand in Donald Trump’s presidency. If you have big enough data, you can effect random changes like making a certain page load half a second slower, and watch the impact on people’s political habits. If you bring those experiments to their conclusion, you will be able to use imperceptibly subtle influences to decide elections. You won’t have to buy a senator anymore, you can pick which one people will vote for.

      “Oh just use your technical skills to opt out of tracking”, that’s not why I’m scared of tracking. I’m scared of tracking because it could have my illiterate next door neighbour voting for the Trans Genocide party. My illiterate next door neighbour isn’t going to install anti tracking software. These laws exist for a reason. You have to protect EVERYONE from manipulation if you want to protect anyone. You can’t just protect the smart people with the computer skills, you have to think about the effect that each tiny thing will have on the dumbest people in society.

      source