• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 31st, 2023

help-circle
  • That is my experience, https://kbin.social/m/general@burggit.moe/t/667921/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit

    There is hardly any other side to it when it includes the message that prompted the ban and purge, it has as much independent evidence as I’ve been able to provide. I doubt “my side” can be considered whether my claims took place or not, given that they are so largely indisputable due to web.archive, but I can understand if people have different takes about that says about the sort of admins that would do allow it and handle it as they have.

    I don’t use my account that much anymore since that can of worms, so sorry if I don’t respond to it in a while.




  • I had uBlock Origin and I didn’t mind paying for YouTube Premium. When I will mind paying for YouTube Premium will be when all of my feed is full of reactionary populist channels, not to avoid paying part of the income that pays some of the people making a career out of streaming on the platform I’ve been avoiding even watching ads on.

    It will be a losing battle for the people not trying to look for alternatives - in the end, Google has control of the backend, they can eventually decide to incorporate ads directly into the streams that are served to people protocol wise and they can decide to forego giving users any warning of when an ad will play and when they will try to force the video into forced reproduction.

    That the streams are served in a way where the browser can discern when it should play the ads is more of a courtesy from a legacy architecture that came from a Google that wasn’t intent on cracking down on people adblocking, and people may have to revert back to using more specific and resource intensive YouTube adblockers that try to guess when a commercial break is starting and ending directly from the video stream like old school VCRs did: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,-2869,00.html






  • Still, just because an experiment doesn’t have the ideal results doesn’t mean it doesn’t get us closer. Unfortunately, if people are going to trust the server with the best marketing instead looking into issues like this, it pretty much makes it impossible to move on because bad faith actors who are best at lying and cutthroat tactics will be the ones to prevail over people questioning what you are telling them without reading the mountains of evidence you are using to back your claims.

    The rot definitely seems too close to the core with lemmy.



  • Yeah, I’m really getting the feeling they are just trying to bury it and ignore it. I was having trouble accessing the modlog, but when I was able to, they seemed to have gone through the effort to eliminate a lot of the entries, which included my account purge, ban, and ban reason. They still haven’t even bothered to answer the ticket I put up on tickets.mastodon.world, maybe I’ll add a screenshot to that later to show the ticket status and the time it has spent as unanswered. No admin has replied to me directly, and the closest I’ve seen any admin reply on the issue is to criticize the kbin.social instance as reliable because of the criticism they get on them.

    The real problem is this is being done in bad faith, and if that’s their core drive, then the only thing they’ll do in the future is make-up better sounding excuses to cover their asses.




  • 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.




  • You say a lot of things, but do you have evidence of them? Or is it just related to them doing what’s actually required to avoid giving the people DDoSing them another means of taking them down, fake DMCAs based on communities hosted in other instances that promote breaking the law?

    And before anyone gets any idea, if they tried doing the same because they are mad, expect for it to backfire. Spectacularly. As in you might want to think of moving directly into the servers hosting those communities. And that’s not a threat, that’s because anyone with a brain can read, specially those in the legal world who have jobs because there is literally a separate aspect of legal proceedings involved collecting evidence called discovery where lots of people with brains are able to read and understand the same conversations you and me are able to understand for instances that might indicate aiding, abetting, and collusion and discern them from the false accusations thereof.