4 ms·

I value them a lot, happy that the EU didnt bend down to Apple. If it werent for the EU, the companies would get away with all sorts of shit. Is as if people

by slekker 4mo ago

I value them a lot, happy that the EU didnt bend down to Apple. If it werent for the EU, the companies would get away with all sorts of shit. Is as if people forget companies are evil by nature and will fuck you any chance they get.

thesmtsolver2 4mo ago
Meanwhile: EU pushing to snoop on private chats and US companies are pushing back.
- junto 4mo ago
  Where do you think that lobbying money is coming from?
viktorcode 4mo ago
I'm curios what kind of shit specifically DMCA protects you from?
- wtb04 4mo ago
  I think you mean DMA, not DMCA. DMCA mostly protects copyright holders. DMA is about protecting users and competitors from platform lock-in. Bending for Apple would just make that lock-in harder to challenge.
  - duskwuff 4mo ago
    DMCA provides some rather important protection for service providers (including small-scale services like web forums, not just ISPs and web hosts) - it makes them not liable for copyright violations by their users, so long as they take down infringing content upon receipt of a DMCA notice. But I agree, that's probably not what OP meant.
    - krzyk 4mo ago
      Doesn't "DMCA", make, well, the DMCA notice a thing?
      - duskwuff 4mo ago
        Precisely. What it replaced was rightsholders suing web services (like a forum or web host) as a first resort, which was a much more cumbersome and painful process for all parties.
        krzyk 4mo ago
        If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing. Now all it needs is send some letter to github and they take down content, no questions asked, how is that better? It is for court to decide.
        duskwuff 4mo ago
        > If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing. It's a lot easier for a large plaintiff - like a record label, a movie studio, or a software publisher - to file a lawsuit than it is for a small defendant like a web site operator to defend against one.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago
[flagged]
- customguy 4mo ago
  https://block81.com/blog/why-most-websites-dont-actually-need-cookie-consent-banners https://block81.com/blog/why-most-websites-dont-actually-nee... That's been true from day one. So the question is, did you come up with the FUD yourself, or did you believe someone else?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - customguy 4mo ago
      Just read the article.
    - tremon 4mo ago
      The FUD is claiming that those banners are mandated by the EU, rather than malicious compliance from the industry.
- remus 4mo ago
  I totally agree cookie banners are awful, but you could equally lay the blame at the foot of website owners who are so keen to track your movements across the web that they'll layer this awful UX on their users. No tracking cookies => no cookie banners.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago
    In reality, website who don't have any tracking cookies, still hang this banner just in case someone would start harrassing them.

by slekker 4mo ago

thesmtsolver2 4mo ago

Meanwhile: EU pushing to snoop on private chats and US companies are pushing back.

junto 4mo ago
Where do you think that lobbying money is coming from?

viktorcode 4mo ago

I'm curios what kind of shit specifically DMCA protects you from?

wtb04 4mo ago
I think you mean DMA, not DMCA. DMCA mostly protects copyright holders. DMA is about protecting users and competitors from platform lock-in. Bending for Apple would just make that lock-in harder to challenge.
- duskwuff 4mo ago
  DMCA provides some rather important protection for service providers (including small-scale services like web forums, not just ISPs and web hosts) - it makes them not liable for copyright violations by their users, so long as they take down infringing content upon receipt of a DMCA notice. But I agree, that's probably not what OP meant.
  - krzyk 4mo ago
    Doesn't "DMCA", make, well, the DMCA notice a thing?
    - duskwuff 4mo ago
      Precisely. What it replaced was rightsholders suing web services (like a forum or web host) as a first resort, which was a much more cumbersome and painful process for all parties.
      - krzyk 4mo ago
        If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing. Now all it needs is send some letter to github and they take down content, no questions asked, how is that better? It is for court to decide.
        duskwuff 4mo ago
        > If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing. It's a lot easier for a large plaintiff - like a record label, a movie studio, or a software publisher - to file a lawsuit than it is for a small defendant like a web site operator to defend against one.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago

[flagged]

customguy 4mo ago
https://block81.com/blog/why-most-websites-dont-actually-need-cookie-consent-banners https://block81.com/blog/why-most-websites-dont-actually-nee... That's been true from day one. So the question is, did you come up with the FUD yourself, or did you believe someone else?
- Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - customguy 4mo ago
    Just read the article.
  - tremon 4mo ago
    The FUD is claiming that those banners are mandated by the EU, rather than malicious compliance from the industry.
remus 4mo ago
I totally agree cookie banners are awful, but you could equally lay the blame at the foot of website owners who are so keen to track your movements across the web that they'll layer this awful UX on their users. No tracking cookies => no cookie banners.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4mo ago
  In reality, website who don't have any tracking cookies, still hang this banner just in case someone would start harrassing them.