3 ms·
That's a very D&D Rulebook type interpretation :). Not that rulings should be ambiguous, but usually some common sense can be applied (and is expected to be rea
by throwawaywego 7y ago
That's a very D&D Rulebook type interpretation :). Not that rulings should be ambiguous, but usually some common sense can be applied (and is expected to be reasonably applied).
The Facebook like button is a web tracker, disguised as a social engagement button. If not its primary -, then its secondary function is to (indiscriminately) track users and non-users outside of its walled garden, like some reversed Trojan Horse.
Hotlinking an image is just that: hotlinking an image. Facebook relies on us and lawmakers to say: "We just can't ban third party content!", while we perfectly could leave innocent third party content alone, and focus our sights on the spy button. It isn't reasonable, nor common sense to conflate the two: even if similar in syntax, the context is vastly different.
- macinjosh 7y ago> That's a very D&D Rulebook type interpretation :). Not that rulings should be ambiguous, but usually some common sense can be applied (and is expected to be reasonably applied). You can't build a business on assumptions made on an ambiguous ruling. And while common sense seems reasonable there it has no definition. Why should investors take the risk?
- ryandrake 7y agoLots of businesses, investor-backed and otherwise, currently operate within the “frontier areas” of the law. Some of them step a little too far and get whacked, others stay in the gray area for decades making money. Legal due diligence is not about guaranteeing 100% you’re above board. It’s about weighing the risks.
- hanspeter 7y agoDo you realise that most tracking products including Google Analytics was/is built around hotlinking an image? An image served from a third party server can very much have a secondary function to track users.
- throwawaywego 7y agoYup. And Google Analytics should (and I believe already has) be treated similarly to a tracking beacon.