- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
… We’re gonna get another cookie click-through, aren’t we?
Every tech article I read nowadays I feel like has the appendix, “which is illegal in the EU.” Lol
The only thing still preventing mayhem along with California
Fuck yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. California is the only reason we don’t have products giving insta-cancer ect.
Seriously. Everything causes cancer which has the unfortunate effect of dulling the fear response but it is good to know. If you want to sell your product in California, which is where silicon valley is, you need to observe their safety standards.
And thank the EU we might actually get right to repair.
Elon can block EU for Twitter if he wants to but it’s probably going to cost him even more.
The way the guy was flexing about being an “expert”, while it may or may not be true (I haven’t independently verified his credentials), is extremely offputting. Refusing to engage with hecklers is a better policy than flexing with your education, credentials, and experience.
Yep. He took a massive ego trip early on and immediately came across as someone I don’t particularly want to side with.
I’m a web developer and fundamentally disagree with his take on what JavaScript can do on the client side. I see what he’s getting at but I think he’s wrong. JavaScript can certainly detect access to resources (ads in this instance) without violating any enforceable policies. Half the internet does error handling with JS for things that won’t load - how can this be construed as violating eprivacy? Nonsense.
That being said I’d love for this feature to go away and would be happy to see YouTube and Google go pound sand… but this feels like a stretch. It was inevitable enshittification imo.
How is it offputting to say “listen to me because I’m an expert, here’s my credentials”? Everybody’s so fast to claim “fake news” nowadays that demonstrating your credibility has become a requirement.
The person he was responding to was asking for some specific clarification. Instead of offering it, he appealed to his own authority, essentially listing his credentials in a pompous way and then saying “You don’t need to understand. I’m the expert, I’ll understand it for you.”
He’s answering to a person saying “IANAL” asking whether this really is illegal with “I am an expert on this particular law, helped to write its replacement and already had confirmation from DG Just (EU Commission) that the law applies in the way I have stated”. Seems perfectly apropos to me.
But he didn’t cite policy, law, or legal analysis. I work as a technology policy writer/interpreter in the US so I can’t address the EU issues. But I’ve never responded to someone who asked for the basis of my conclusion by listing my credentials. When I publish a policy position paper, I cite chapter and verse all relevant laws, policies, statutes, and explanation for interpretation. I’ve written entire pages offering justification for the interpretation of a single sentence a particular way. He didn’t do that. He might be right, but he didn’t justify it in any meaningful way.
Yikes that reply was way out of proportion to the question, holy moly. Listing off his degrees just dripped with insecurity…
IANAL, but since without adblocker site works, but with adblocker youtube breaks it, which means this information somehow is collected, which probably is violation of EU law no matter how exactly Google gets this information. And Google can’t say “we accidentaly are making totally different thing, that just so happens to break adblock” because they just wrote in text that they detected adblock.
Yeah as others have stated, Google could deduce your usage of an adblock through any myriad ways. But you’ve got a point - it’s one to thing to throw a popup saying “Our ads couldn’t play for some reason, we won’t show you videos until they do,” and another to say “We know you are using an adblocker, we won’t show you videos until you disable it.”
Cool, so YouTube will start putting pop ups that require you to consent to the detection in order to watch videos. That’s what everyone did with the whole cookies thing when that was determined to be illegal without consent.
Another three cheers for the EU! 🇪🇺🍻🥂
This is frivolous and ridiculous.
If europeans had spent as much time building youtube competitors as they spent trying to find holes to litigate, europe would be richer
Do you wish for more consent popups or do you hope that youtube is afraid of causing friction and will go back to how things were?
You should all go file a complaint with a data protection agency.
The thread in the linked social network suggests concentrating the complaints to the Irish DPC: https://forms.dataprotection.ie/contact
uBlock Origin has no issues with blocking ads.
I get trying to fight it via legal means, but it is a solved problem.
EU to the rescue again!
deleted by creator
Everyday I think the European Union for preventing the internet from being worse than it could be. It’s sad that back when the internet was a cesspool was so far the best age for it. Normies really do ruin everything
Thank fuck for EU and GDPR
This isn’t the solution people think it is. The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site. That is, assuming Alexander Hanff, the one carrying on this narrative since 2016, is correct and interpreted the response correctly. In Article 5 of the 2002/58/EC there is a second paragraph that states the following:
Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications and the related traffic data when carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.
I’m no lawyer, but I tell you who has them in droves, Google and YouTube, whom I’m sure have already discussed whether their primary means of business revenue, ads, could be construed as a commercial transaction for which evidence is needed. I’m not sure how a two page reply from the EU commission to his request telling him Article 5 applies really helps the guy out if Article 5 also includes the means by which YouTube is allowed to run scripts that provide evidence that ads have been able to be properly reproduced.
Still, assuming Alexander Hanff is right, Google just needs to add a consent form and begin blocking access to all content if users disagree, so it seems to me his claim is damned if he is right, and damned if he isn’t right.
I’m all for personal freedoms but you’re getting a service you pay no money for and then get pissed that they are getting the money out of you another way. Sound like people being petty.
