The EU has its faults, too, like this BS about sacrificing encryption. Overall, there seem to be a lot of benefits reigning in big companies, though.

Who else is looking out for their citizens? I think some congresspeople in the US ask tough questions, but in the end, business just goes on as usual.

Yes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.

Actually I will, because big Tech used to be on the level because they knew they would be called out for fuckery. Then Facebook brought the Baby Boomers online and it was the Eternal September on steroids.

This is the same chicken / egg thing as plastic pollutions.

Sure consumers choice of whether to discard or recycle a plastic straw is nothing compared to the decisions of corporations, but then consumers invest in those companies, buy their products, and elect representatives who do not hold them accountable.

Big tech has ruined the internet because people were willing to trade their privacy and their attention in order to watch gifs of cats playing the piano. I’m not “blaming” people for that - hell, I was one of them, but you can’t solve the problem without understanding how it’s perpetuated.

Strictly speaking, management at Big Tech are all normies and they make the decisions.

I think the point is solid: non-tech-people sell capabilities to other non-tech-people to make money, and this forms a feedback loop and drives direction. A non-big-tech world is wildly different because it’s more like tech people building an environment for doing things with other tech people.

The normies support big tech, they love it. They probably work for big tech, or wish they did, or at least imagine themselves as the next Elon Musk.

“Don’t be an asshole”? As a response to a short three sentence statement where no one was an asshole…

I think you’re the fucking asshole regardless of how much blame “big tech” and corporations in general bare here.

Slow the fuck down.

If a private company has to succeed, it has to offer things ** that normies want.** FB/G is shit because this is what normies consume - the ego-display, the dopamine kick. In every enshittification of a service, there is a history of it being cravingly indulged by the mass. Now when the companies started rising up and used their monopoly, they (the normies) are realizing they have been shit-eating for a long time. One may argue the companies were not so in the beginning, but that would be a very myopic view.

Normally it wouldn’t be, but these sheep were told “Do not go to this farm or you will be cooked.” and responded with “Pffft, that’ll happen to the other guy…” or “Pfft you’re just whining because you expect everything just handed to you”

But they weren’t led. They were convinced by big tech. But in the end they choose to go into the meat grinder themselves.

As much as I loathe that term, it could be argued that they indirectly are.

The massive increase in the amount of people online made it profitable for companies to be online. Lack of regulations and the inability for regulators to keep up with technological advancements allowed companies to maximize profits at the expense of everything else. The complete inability of government to prevent monetary influence on legislature has prevented good regulations from developing. The fact that the average person online uses maybe five websites in total and doesn’t engage further means that most issues fly under the radar of the average person, which limits the ability of any significant amount of constituents to pressure the politicians supposedly representing them to do better, and limits the overall impact of any movement away from shitty sites to better ones.

It’s a tangled yarn ball, but one that would struggle to exist without a majority of people to pull money from who just do not care about any of the shit that people more deeply invested in the internet care about.

I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

There are multiple French websites that do this. It is legal (otherwise these websites would not do this anymore, it’s been a while).
There is a popup asking you if you consent to get cookies (for advertisement). If you say “no”, it leads you to another popup with two choices :

• Change your decision and accept cookies
• Pay for a premium service without advertisements

I can heartily recommend Consent-O-Matic. I’d say that it’s able to clear (and reject by default) the cookie warnings on 95% of the sites I visit.

Would be a shame if your answer to that consent question was not saved and would be required to answer each time you open up a video.

All these fuckers are our neighbors and for many of us former employers.

We know exactly how they think, and what they think of us.

Andreesen is the tip of the iceberg.

Really interested in your thought process here

Eh, no, it’s the exact opposite of that.

Huh? This is about youtube wanting to make sure you see ads, and people complaining to the EU to make them censure youtube for it. Not sure where you got that EU wants to make sure you see ads.

Too many big companies got their feefees hurtied because we downthumbered their stupid announcements. Think of them for once 😭

UP RYD!

deleted by creator

Just replying to confirm that “strictly necessary” has never meant, “makes us money.” It means technically necessary.

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

Why wouldn’t the hacker just be liable instead?

You consent to their terms of service and privacy policy when you access their website by your continued use. They disclose the collection of browser behavior and more in the privacy policy. I suspect they are covered here but I don’t specialize in EU policy.

In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don’t “sell” user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it’s not in their interest to sell it.

I think what they were saying is that the law specifically makes exceptions for things that are necessary. Others are saying ads are not necessary per the law’s definition, but that’s a separate issue.

doing something illegal is never OK in the eyes of the law

yeah, doing something illegal is illegal, hard to argue with that tautology.

but you seem to be living under the impression that immoral = illegal, which is not the case.

Saving Jews during the holocaust in Germany was illegal. How naive are you?

Good to know, actually

That doesn’t appear to be correct.

Executive Summary
• Ad blocker detection is not illegal, but might, under a strict interpretation of the ePrivacy Directive be regulated and require the informed consent of users.

• Depending on the technical implementation of ad blocker detection, such detection may be out of scope of the consent requirement of the ePrivacy Directive, or fall within an exemption to the consent requirement. But the legal situation is not very clear.

• Publishers who use ad blocker detection should update their privacy policy to
include use of ad blocker detection scripts.

• Publishers may want to err on the side of caution and obtain consent for the use of ad blocker detection scripts to preempt and avoid any legal challenges.

• Publishers could obtain consent by slightly modifying their existing compliance mechanisms for the use of cookies as the possible new consent requirement
emanates from the same law mandating consent for the use of cookies.

• Publishers could use two practical solutions to request and obtain consent for
the use of ad blocker detection: a consent banner or a consent wall.
Publishers could also make use of a combination of the two to complement
each other.

Source

I was going to reply, but lemmy.world admins decided to ban my account there suddenly and delete my complete comment history because of some criticism to their terms of conduct (hence why the comment you replied to is empty in some instances)… luckily I noticed as I was about to respond to your reply, saving it in the process when it didn’t seem to go through. Without further adeu, and keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert:

That’s true for cookies, but I’m not so sure it is true for this. I could be completely wrong, so I’ve tried searching for more answers, and from what I’ve gathered, it’s not even something that all EU states agree with. According to EDPB Guidelines there is something known as “permissible consent”. What you are referring to is discussed in this point:

In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made
conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information
already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user (so called cookie walls)

But when you are talking about ads, you aren’t just talking about information stored or access to it, you are talking about a commercial transaction, between the person paying the service to put up the ad so that someone views it, who in essence is paying a part of your subscription. This can still exist even when you’ve refused targeted marketing, so only permissible incentive (seeing ads that may be more relevant to you) is lost in that regard, meaning you still have a genuine choice. But I’m no expert if that’s how the law applies.

It really gets nebulous, and I’m not seeing a clear answer in the EDPB guidelines, but it does say this in one of the examples it gives:

As long as there is a possibility to have the contract performed or the contracted service delivered by this controller without consenting to the other or additional data use in question, this means there is no longer a conditional service. However, both services need to be genuinely equivalent.

The only obligation on behalf of YT might be that the user is aware of and agrees to the contract and the collection of personal data, “accessing information already stored on an end user’s terminal equipment” for the purpose of fulfilling contractual obligations.

In short, it’s not that cut and dry. It’s the reason why you can’t access Netflix without paying. It’s the reason you have a cheaper Netflix service if you accept ads.

I’m all for this protection but for the sake of argument isn’t use of the service consent to begin with? Or is that the American argument around these types of regulation?

I’m a pihole, vpn, adblock and invidious user ftr… 😂