this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
993 points (97.0% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35473 readers
252 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/ExplicitContent

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

7. Content should match the theme of this community.

-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...

8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.

-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
LillianVS@lemmy.world
STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
993
CNN blocks Firefox with uBo (lemmus.org)
submitted 10 months ago by kinnce_of_p3rs14@lemmus.org to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
187 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 339 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why won't you let them protect your privacy???

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 79 points 10 months ago (4 children)

To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:

They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you're blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you're blocking it)?

Weird thing. Doubt there'd be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that's of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it's an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 79 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what's allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

  • browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user's preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
  • browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
  • regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
  • regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
  • any combination or all of the above
[–] habitualTartare@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago

Sounds like do not track +

[–] Mechanize@feddit.it 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature.

Well, it kind of is. The Do Not Track header has recently seen a court win in Germany (source):

It turned out that the judge agreed with vzbv, ruling that the social media giant is no longer allowed to warn users it doesn't respect DNT signals. That's because, under GDPR, the right to opt out of web tracking and data collection can also be exercised using automated procedures.

And it is basically the same in California too Source

GPC is a valid do-not-sell-my-personal-information signal according to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which stipulates that websites are legally required to respect a signal sent by users who want to opt-out of having their personal data sold.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Damn, that's amazing!

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They should just treat it as declined every necessary cookie and move on

[–] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 10 months ago

It's already supposed to be decline-by-default in this case (IIRC under GDPR)

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Then why can over 100,000 other sites show their cookie banners as required by GDPR while Firefox + unlock origin is active, but somehow one of the largest media companies in America "just can't do it" without disabling your ad-blocker?

If they really couldn't do it, they would do like Home Depot did and block anyone in europe from accessing their site.

This is not about GDPR at all! This is exclusively about forcing you to disable your ad-blocker so they can make more money from offering a bad browsing experience.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 10 months ago

unlock origin

Exactly, it works fine with third-party scripts blocked.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 10 months ago

They offered it but you just didn't see it because blocked, so there.