Notices by A* Ulven :verified_blobcat: (algorithmwolf@ioc.exchange), page 2

@PurpCat i know right?

I think the exact same

@Moon i have content warning phobia

A�AB: Assigned Unicode At Birth

@Moon @feld @helvick You're shitposter dot club moon, that's exactly who I was thinking.

Who the fuck is YouTube Moon lmao

@Moon @feld
@helvick

LMAO, Moon the guy himself came into this thread, I'm honoured.

But yeah, I agree with the general sentiment. Fuck Google and fuck ads, but I cannot really understand how JavaScript being executed on your browser to determine if you are watching ads is legally problematic.

Regardless, in the case this is actually in breach of law, and YouTube gets slapped with a fine or something, they can always revert to the other method I mentioned of generating random IDs for ads, and refusing to serve your connection if you never loaded those ads with the unique ID tied to your session. That would work purely server-side and without any JavaScript.

@thatprivacyguy I understand.

However, I do see, unfortunately, lots of people throwing laws around to try to stop something that is completely legal but they personally dislike.

With that being said... You haven't really justified anything. I believe you have a lot of experience and know very well what you are doing: good for you. But I still do not understand why you're framing it this way.

In particular, I would like to know exactly how they're doing this, on a technical level, since you mentioned you know perfectly well (and I only have a vague intuition, admittedly).

I may not be as academically achieved as you are in regulatory fields, but I do have a CS degree, and more than a decade working with Internet-connected systems, specifically in the areas of computer security, which of course includes handling PCI, PII, and GDPR data in a secure manner. I am sure I would be able to understand how YouTube has implemented this on a technical level in a way that contravenes the law.

@thatprivacyguy I had read your excerpt:

"Under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC YouTube are legally obligated to obtain consent before storing or accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service."

And explicitly mentioned earlier I fail to make the connection between this specific paragraph and anti-adblock technologies.

Is there something I am missing? I am not really willing to read the entirety of the ePrivacy Directive, because, and I'm sure you'd understand:
- the vast majority of the document is not relevant to the way YouTube implements their anti-adblock techniques
- you specifically are the subject matter expert, and I believe it is less work for you to show me how the connection is made than the time I'd have to invest reading the document in full, possibly still not arriving to a conclusion, which is the point of this exchange in the first place

@thatprivacyguy hi Alex. IANAL, but I don't really see what adblock detection has to do with accessing information stored on a device. The way they implemented this is likely giving unique ad IDs, and then checking if connections are being made to those IDs, when you load the page. If not, then it's obvious what is happening.

Look, I dislike this YouTube move as much as you, but I really don't think GDPR is appropriate to handle this. This does seem more like a case of a business rejecting customers by not providing them with the requested service at their discretion. This, by the way is fully legal, as long as it is not a targeted campaign against protected minorities (women, LGBT, refugees), which very clearly isn't the case.

Can you elaborate further on why you think GDPR applies here?

@mario dum cat behaviour

@rishisunak @ipg do you support homosexual furry sex with strangers in furry cons?

@seltadys You're going to get fucked on Sunday?? Good girl, I wish I could watch :33

@seltadys Is he going to use you good? I hope he gropes you hard without asking >:3

@seltadys Yessssss, good chewtoy, I love that :3

@seltadys I love making free-use holes like you feel embarrassed and humilliated, especially when they beg me to jam my fat cock down their throat, this also gets them to shut the fuck up, it's not like toys have the right to voice their opinions, isn't that right sweetie??? :333

@seltadys awwww such a good girl, I bet you're dying to get your throat properly used :33

By the way, did you see my cock yet? Wanna see?

@seltadys here love, want to wash it with your tongue? I bet you love the taste of precum and letting strangers use your throat like a fleshlight

@errante @prouddegenerate there's a difference between "you're a shitty person if you do X" and "you're a [slur] if your skin is [colour]" and variations of that.

The latter has no place anywhere. Doesn't bring any value, and it's impossible for anyone to change and adjust. Defending nazis and being a nazi is a choice. Hating is a choice.

@errante did you read any of what I wrote?

@prouddegenerate @errante

I don't want free speech.

I don't want fascism.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Free speech is not a noble goal. If you can't respect other people and exercise basic decency, you can fuck off.

@errante @prouddegenerate i don't care about you in particular. If you believe someone doesn't have the right to exist, or, on the other hand, enable the behaviour of other people expressing their disapproval of others existing, and you call that free speech, then you're a shitty person and I don't want anything to do with you.

Again, I don't care about you in particular, don't give me any of this "but actually I'm not like that" I literally don't care. Good for you. Free speech is a stupid concept.