TWeaK

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The main picture says "Vape Sensor in Simon's Desk", so it sounds like each pupil's desk is going to have a sensor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

If the US only awarded actual damages like most of the rest of the world, instead of inflated punitive damages, then this would pretty much be a non-issue. Rightsholders in the US see targeting copyright infringement as a source of income, not a necessary indemnity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I said you came in to correct me but didn't actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.

I didn't say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named "Trump".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Because of enshittification lol

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It looks like you haven't really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we're talking about Brazil. You haven't established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we're talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn't really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates "Directives"

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn't an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

  • What I said at the start was right - Brazil's Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
  • My example of cookie splash screens wasn't ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn't a judge's rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn't read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you'd just made those statements without the veil, or if you'd followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don't think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn't have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn't call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.

And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.

Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah I wasn't aware of that shortcut, one of the main reasons DDG wasn't working for me was because I thought I could only do !g and then go to the Google page, and Google had been making it more difficult to go from the main search page to Maps.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

DuckDuckGo is also feeding your search terms into AI development now. I've tried it again recently but prefer Ecosia, at least Ecosia lets me more easily get to Google Maps when I want to, rather than trying to push Apple Maps.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn't still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for "tweets" I think the original name should still stand.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Law isn't defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge's ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

Now, I'm not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don't know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn't how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that's being collected. However, the judge's ruling stands as law now.

 

Just had the following email from GOG about account migration for CD Projekt Red games, not quite sure what to make of it. Don't CDPR own GOG? Why do they need to be separated? What does this mean for the long term future of the services?

MIGRATION OF CD PROJEKT RED ONLINE SERVICES

Dear [user],

You are receiving this email due to your use of online features, including Cross Progression and My Rewards, in CD PROJEKT RED games, as well as your participation in platforms like the CD PROJEKT RED Forums. We are migrating these products to a new account system, owned and operated by CD PROJEKT S.A., effective from March 5th, 2024. This consolidation will involve the transfer of governance of your personal data, including your email address and username, from the GOG account system to the CD PROJEKT RED account system.

What does this change?

Starting March 5th, 2024, the above mentioned online features and services will be available through a new CD PROJEKT RED account system.

Do I need to take any action?

No, a new CD PROJEKT RED account will be created for you automatically based on your GOG Account information: user ID, username and email address. This will allow you to continue using features provided by CD PROJEKT RED with no interruption. No action is required on your end.

How can I log in after the migration?

Your new account will use the same email address as your GOG Account. If you’re already logged into any of our games, you will stay logged in when the account change takes place.

What happens to my personal data?

Upon migration, CD PROJEKT S.A. will become a data controller of your personal data connected with CD PROJEKT RED account. Transfer of data will be based on a legitimate interest in ensuring continuity of CD PROJEKT RED online services. For more information see updated CD PROJEKT S.A. Privacy Policy available here.

How does this affect my current GOG account?

Your GOG account and all your GOG purchases remain unaffected. The GOG.com website and the GOG Galaxy app will continue to use the GOG account system. Your GOG account will be separate from your CD PROJEKT RED account.

Can I opt out?

If you do not wish to have a CD PROJEKT RED account created for you, you may opt out of the account creation process by clicking this link. After the account system migration, you will be able to delete your account with the same link.

If you choose to opt out, please note that on March 5th, 2024 you will lose access to Cross Progression, My Rewards, and RED Forums, and all connected data will be permanently deleted.

You can create a new CD PROJEKT RED account at any time.

If you have any questions or need further assistance, please visit our support page.

Warm Regards,

GOG and CD PROJEKT RED Teams

 

I know this isn't strictly piracy related, I apologise, but I think it is tangentally related in that piracy protects you from data theft by avoiding the services the biggest thieves operate. Also, I feel like people here might be very interested in this take.

Apparently, the "legal" data brokerage industry was worth $319 billion in 2021, and is predicted to be worth $545 billion in 2028.[^1]

Meanwhile, in 2021 there were only 7.9 billion people in the world[^2] - many of whom do not have internet access or have very little data being traded. If we generously assume 6 billion people have equal volumes of data being traded, that means each person's data is worth $53.17 per year on the market.

Data is effectively stolen from people. We do not get anything in return for it. We may be offered access to a website free of charge, but that is a separate transaction - it is not appropriate for another transaction to be hidden in the fine print of the terms and conditions. When you buy insurance, the key terms have to be front and centre - you pay x, you get y service. Not "You can have y for free!!! ^(But^ ^also^ ^you^ ^give^ ^us^ ^x^ ^for^ ^free.)^" You're supposed to be able to compare the value of the things being traded.

Bearing in mind that this is merely data brokerage, not actual processing or deriving any value from the data, a simple profit margin can be applied. They simply collect the data - easily and at low cost through automated processes - and then sell it. If businesses still took a very generous 30% profit (rather than a ludicrous infinite and pure profit) then the value of an average person's data that they are owed is around $40 per year.


To run the other numbers to check, the global population in 2028 is predicted to be 8.4 billion - a growth of 6.329%. So our 6 billion population would become 6.38 billion, and with the $545 billion market value an individual's data would be worth $85.43 on the market, or $65.71 to the individual. The value of user data is predicted to rise.

Obviously that 6 billion population figure I used is an approximation - a blind one at that. To give a worst case valuation for 2021, if we assume all 7.9 billion people equally have data being traded, then an individual's data is worth $40.38 on the market, and $31.06 to the user. These are the minimum values, averaged evenly across the entire global population.


When Google and Facebook started out, data had very little value - there was no market for it. Thus it seemed reasonable to let them just take it, even if maybe it could be worth something. The service they offered was new and novel, a shiny new toy for everyone to play with. They then used this data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. Now, even big players like Microsoft have joined in, in spite of the fact that their main products are paid products.

One form of bank fraud is where the criminal takes pennies out of multiple accounts, the idea being that people won't notice such a small debit, and banks might write it off as some kind of error. This has been legislated against and proven illegal - yet these assholes take $40 each from everyone and get away with it!

[^1]:https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/global-data-broker-market Edit: lmao we broke it https://web.archive.org/web/20240107042301/https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/global-data-broker-market ...or did they maybe take it down?? /tinfoil Edit2: it's back up lol [^2]:https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2021/

 

When did this happen?! It makes me so happy!

It's still not quite as good as old reddit with RES was, where you started with everything normal and then clicked a button to expand (or contract) media. Being able to contract everything is almost as useful, particularly if you want to scroll further down. However it's still a great improvement, as well as proof that lemmy just keeps getting better.

 

A judge tossed two of the claims against Afroman, finding that "the issue appears to be the humiliation and outrage that the officers feel at having their likenesses displayed and mocked."


The rapper Afroman will have to continue to defend himself against a defamation lawsuit filed by Ohio sheriff's deputies who raided his house after a judge allowed some of the deputies' claims to proceed.

In a ruling last week, an Ohio county judge dismissed two of the deputies' claims against Afroman, best known for his 2000 hit "Because I Got High," finding that the rapper's commentary was protected artistic speech. However, the judge allowed three other claims to proceed, finding that it was not outside the realm of possibility that the deputies could prove they were entitled to relief.

The Adams County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) executed a search warrant on Afroman's house last August on suspicion of drug possession, drug trafficking, and kidnapping. As Reason reported in June, the deputies were searching for evidence of outlandish claims from a confidential informant that the house contained a basement dungeon.

Deputies found neither large amounts of marijuana nor a depraved dungeon. Afroman was never charged with a crime. He responded by releasing two music videos viciously mocking the deputies—"Lemon Pound Cake" and "Will You Help Me Repair My Door." He also sold merchandise with images of the deputies and used the footage to promote his products and tours.

The mockery offended the deputies so much that seven of them filed a lawsuit against Afroman in March. The deputies argued Afroman used their personas for commercial purposes without permission, causing them to suffer "embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of reputation."

In an October 13 ruling on Afroman's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Adams County Judge Jerry McBride tossed out the deputies' claims of invasion of privacy by misappropriation and unauthorized commercial use, finding that, "while their quality and appropriateness may be questioned, [Afroman's] artistic and musical renderings have substantial and creative content which outweighs any adverse effect on the plaintiffs in terms of their right of publicity."

"In this case, the value that seems to be at issue here is not the monetary value of the officers' likenesses, which appears to be nominal," McBride wrote. "Instead, the issue appears to be the humiliation and outrage that the officers feel at having their likenesses displayed and mocked by the defendant. Undoubtedly, they also feel aggrieved by their investigative actions being questioned publicly."

However, McBride allowed three of the officers' other claims—false light, unreasonable publicity of private lives, and defamation—to survive, finding that many of Afroman's comments on the deputies appeared to be statements of fact rather than opinion. For example, Afroman posted on social media that deputies wanted to kill him, that one of them stole money from him, and that another deputy was a lesbian.

"My clients are pleased with the Court's ruling denying the defendants' motion to dismiss their claims," Robert Klingler, an attorney for the deputies, says. "Telling lies about people in public discourse is never justified, especially when those lies are vile, intentional, and meant only to unfairly damage people's reputations. Mr. Foreman has until now acted as if he can say anything he wants, not matter how untrue and despicable, without any repercussions. We look forward to demonstrating that neither Mr. Foreman, nor anyone else, has the right to intentionally lie about others for the purpose of causing them injury."

The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief in support of Afroman's motion to dismiss the suit, arguing it was a blatant example of what's known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

"We were pleased to see that the trial court properly dismissed several of the police plaintiffs' claims," says David Carey, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Ohio. "Even at this early stage, it is obviously meritless for the officers to claim that Afroman 'misappropriated' commercial value merely by commenting on the events of a destructive search of his home—even if that commentary took the form of harsh mockery, and even if it was placed on products that he offered for sale."

Such retaliation for publicly criticizing the police is sadly common. Reason recently reported on a lawsuit filed by an Iowa man who was arrested twice for criticizing his local police department during the public comment period of a city council meeting.

 

https://lemm.ee/comment/3432900

I made this comment yesterday, however it doesn't show up in my profile nor on lemm.ee - all I can see is replies to the comment from my notifications, but not the comment tree in the post and all 3 replies have the same url to the same non-existent parent comment. When I browse the full comments none of them show up. It also appears on some federated instances, but not others - it's there on kbin, but not on lemmy.world or dbzer0 - yet somehow I have replies from all 3.

 
 

Maybe this post would be more at home on a lemmy.ml community, or on github, but this place is my home and I feel like I'd like to get opinions here first :o)

Right now, there is no way to make an instance agnostic link for a post or comment, like you can do with users or communities. Each instance assigns its own number to posts and comments, and there isn't really an easy way to find a post or comment on one instance when starting from another.

For example, if I get a lemmy.world link to a post in a lemmy.world community, in order for me to comment from lemm.ee I would first have to go to lemm.ee/c/[email protected], then find the post in there manually. If I want to reply to a specific comment, I would have to find the post on lemm.ee in this way, then also search that thread for the comment. If you're looking for an old post with a lot of comments, this can be quite challenging.

Instead, I think lemmy needs to revise how it numbers comments and posts, using the same system used for users and communities. Rather than every instance using a different number, they should use the federated host's number followed by @hostinstance. The local user would still see the original federated link, but users from other instances would see it in their own instance with a tag for the federated host instance. This way, anyone could easily edit any link to make it work in their own instance (provided that link has already been federated in their own instance).


Here is a specific example I wrote in a comment elsewhere:

For a specific example, to me, this post is https://lemm.ee/post/1726780. In the original, federated instance, the post is https://lemmy.ml/post/2308622. Instead, it should appear to me as https://lemm.ee/post/[email protected].

Your comment, to me, is https://lemm.ee/comment/1409174. The federated link is https://lemmy.one/comment/1393053. This is the link you see, and should continue to see, but I should see https://lemm.ee/comment/[email protected].

Using the instance in the numbering scheme means each federated host instance manages its own numbering while ensuring there will never be a clash between instances. https://lemm.ee/comment/[email protected] and https://lemm.ee/comment/1393053 would refer to two completely different comments. This information is already being transmitted in the process of federation, so it’s just a matter of tagging the data when it’s received.

view more: next ›