Notices by justJanne (justjanne@mastodon.decentralised.chat)

Es heißt nicht "zu wenig Sticker gedruckt" sondern "Limited Edition, solange der Vorrat reicht".

@fluepke That's why this sticker exists :)

Available at 39C3, or you can print it yourself: https://github.com/justjanne/stickers/blob/main/designs/ssl%20added%20and%20removed%20here.svg

@pojntfx that's why this sticker exists :)

SVG: https://github.com/justjanne/stickers/blob/main/designs/ssl%20added%20and%20removed%20here.svg

@Setok @codinghorror @mkoek @dalias I don't have to, because the courts have already done that https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-banner-must-contain-Reject-all-button-10390520.html

The reason illegal banners, such as the one on StackOverflow, continue existing is because the data protection office has to build a case before going to court, which takes time, especially with how many websites continue to violate the law.

@Setok @codinghorror @mkoek @dalias None of those dialogs are legal.

Recent court decisions have forced even Google and Meta to add "reject all" buttons that are just as easy to click as "accept all". Some court decisions have found that if the Do Not Track header is set, the dialog should just automatically reject all.

Nag dialogs as you've described them are illegal. They only exist because crime is more profitable than doing things legally (e.g., Uber).

@codinghorror @mkoek @Setok @dalias

As society, we've decided that some business models shouldn't exist.

You could make the same argument about root causes and money trying to find a way about many other business models society has deemed unwanted.

Of course it's a game of whack-a-mole, but that's true whether the business model is ad telemetry (aka surveillance capitalism), fake gucci bags or cooking meth.

Luckily, the tide is slowly and surely turning against telemetry driven content.

@codinghorror @dalias no, it's not required. None of the EU companies I've been at needed cookie banners, and neither do you.

There's one simple trick: just don't track users. It's even possible to run ads without tracking. Print media has done so for decades!

@whitequark that sounds like something you'd contribute to kwin and wl_roots, wait until the change is in a few distros, then open a new issue about unifying the custom extensions.

@ariadne @whitequark Online I was able to socialize, offline I was dissociating in my room or dissociating on a tree so bullies can't reach me.

But you've hit the nail on the head: children need actual parenting. My parents had to work long hours, so that wasn't possible. But far too often people want a child without the hard work of parenting.

Children need human interaction to grow. Ideally with friends and parents IRL. But safe online environments are still better than being lonely.

@ariadne @whitequark Tbh, I'm not a fan of that either. If your child is using computers all day, there's probably a reason for that. If you set a limit, you don't solve the issue but just mitigate the symptoms.

e.g., I had few friends and was bullied.

When my parents limited my screentime, I just read books instead. At some point they had taken everything, and I'd just spend the afternoons in my own mind and dreams. When they forced me to go outside, I climbed a tree and dreamt there instead.

@whitequark repeat after me: There is no legitimate use case for spyware.

If your child is young enough to need constant supervision, you should sit next to them because they can't read yet anyway.

The fear of all-seeing judgement is incredibly destructive to the psyche. Whether that's "santa sees you when you sleep", "god sees everything", or spyware.

If you'd like to see what your child is doing, just ask them and *respect their answer*. Children are people, not objects you own and control.