InternetTubes
I mean, I’m noticing the same thing between kbin.social and lemmy.world. There was a post I wanted to see through kbin.social from lemmy.world and couldn’t.
What happens when a unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
You say a lot of things, but do you have evidence of them? Or is it just related to them doing what’s actually required to avoid giving the people DDoSing them another means of taking them down, fake DMCAs based on communities hosted in other instances that promote breaking the law?
And before anyone gets any idea, if they tried doing the same because they are mad, expect for it to backfire. Spectacularly. As in you might want to think of moving directly into the servers hosting those communities. And that’s not a threat, that’s because anyone with a brain can read, specially those in the legal world who have jobs because there is literally a separate aspect of legal proceedings involved collecting evidence called discovery where lots of people with brains are able to read and understand the same conversations you and me are able to understand for instances that might indicate aiding, abetting, and collusion and discern them from the false accusations thereof.
I was going to reply, but lemmy.world admins decided to ban my account there suddenly and delete my complete comment history because of some criticism to their terms of conduct (hence why the comment you replied to is empty in some instances)… luckily I noticed as I was about to respond to your reply, saving it in the process when it didn’t seem to go through. Without further adeu, and keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert:
That’s true for cookies, but I’m not so sure it is true for this. I could be completely wrong, so I’ve tried searching for more answers, and from what I’ve gathered, it’s not even something that all EU states agree with. According to EDPB Guidelines there is something known as “permissible consent”. What you are referring to is discussed in this point:
In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made
conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information
already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user (so called cookie walls)
But when you are talking about ads, you aren’t just talking about information stored or access to it, you are talking about a commercial transaction, between the person paying the service to put up the ad so that someone views it, who in essence is paying a part of your subscription. This can still exist even when you’ve refused targeted marketing, so only permissible incentive (seeing ads that may be more relevant to you) is lost in that regard, meaning you still have a genuine choice. But I’m no expert if that’s how the law applies.
It really gets nebulous, and I’m not seeing a clear answer in the EDPB guidelines, but it does say this in one of the examples it gives:
As long as there is a possibility to have the contract performed or the contracted service delivered by this controller without consenting to the other or additional data use in question, this means there is no longer a conditional service. However, both services need to be genuinely equivalent.
The only obligation on behalf of YT might be that the user is aware of and agrees to the contract and the collection of personal data, “accessing information already stored on an end user’s terminal equipment” for the purpose of fulfilling contractual obligations.
In short, it’s not that cut and dry. It’s the reason why you can’t access Netflix without paying. It’s the reason you have a cheaper Netflix service if you accept ads.
I’ll tell you what will make it unsustainable, getting banned “disagreeing” for criticizing and questioning the Terms of Service: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit
Their team is more than one person, so I’m trying to see if I can get a reply from their email in case I can get a more reasonable answer. I have little hope of it, they seem to be a pretty small team (relatively speaking) and I get the impression it was the same person who wrote the Terms of Service.
Funnily enough, another user who was actually being rude in the same thread got banned a few hours earlier but had his comment history as well as the taunts he made in the thread left untouched, showing much more willingness on their part to maintain and even drop down to that level of discourse. I’m not even sure why they are bothering with a Terms of Service if they are just winging it and don’t even care about maintaining appearance.
Yeah, this pretty much wasn’t an accident, they just also banned this user, one I had created long before the ban, because of:
reason: Ban evasion
While having no problem doing that, what they haven’t done is replied directly or addressed the ticket I sent them, so any benefit of the doubt is pretty much extinguished on my side.
It’s clear to me they want to sweep it under the rugs on the hope that controlling the narratives on the most popular lemmy instance works out for them. This was probably what they intended by purging my account all along, thankfully they didn’t seem to keep in mind the nuances of the fediverse which has still allowed me to keep evidence and my user account history despite their worst instincts.