4 ms·
> which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby granting permission. I don't use Facebook and would be happy to have all their like but
by forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby granting permission.
I don't use Facebook and would be happy to have all their like buttons (which are tracking me across sites) wiped out from all the sites I visit. Mmatrix mostly catches them but I wouldn't mind having it on a legal basis.
- toyg 10y agoWebsites would then just set up proxies to do the same thing. Rather than adding a JS call on a page, you'd get some sort of FB-provided box that makes it look like all scripts originate from your domain. This would only hit small operations without the time or inclination to add extra infrastructure to support social sharing, everyone else would carry on as before. Maybe an industry-standard proxy format for shared hosts would emerge at some point, giving the same power to small actors, and you'd be back to square 1.
- forgotpwtomain 10y agoIs that a legal way to avoid a cease and desist? If PowerVentures which was asked to cease and desist and lost, now outsourced their Facebook API use to a third-party (still performing the same function) - would the court really not find against them?
- gm-conspiracy 10y agoBased on the judge's reasoning, I would say yes. Until the 3rd party received its own cease-and-desist, then Power would switch to another 3rd party provider.