Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this, and happy new year in advance.)
via this I just learned that google's about[0] to open the taps on fingerprinting allowance for advertisers
that'll go well.
I realize that a lot of people in the rtb space already spend an utterly obscene amount of effort and resources to try do this shit in the first place, but jesus, this isn't even pretending. guess their projections for ad revenue must be looking real scary!
edit [0] - "about", as in next month. and they announced it last month.
The Google post appears to be Updating our platform policies to reflect innovations in the ads ecosystem.
I have no idea what the heck those words mean (it appears to be some bizarro form of English), so I diffed the policy itself. Here are the parts I found notable.
This will be removed:
This will be removed:
This will be added:
I remember during my very very first job a security guy explaining to me why I can't record work emails of people borrowing stuff from the company's internal library because GDPR. In a company of like 100 people. I guess Google is too big to care.
It's the same feeling as when it's reported some guy was able to defraud literal millions from public funds while I had to separately report and bring a receipt for the $5 I spent on a city bus while out on a business trip because it was funded from a public grant or I'd get fired and sued, in that order.
I'm not a gdpr person (nor even european) but this sounds like bullshit - was it?
I simplified , but:
The problem is that if someone leaves the company you should delete all of their PII you don't need for compliance reasons. The emails were [email protected], as is usual, so it was PII. So if someone borrowed something from the library and that record stayed in the database, when their company profile got deactivated we would've had to have a flow that deleted that row or at least anonymised it. Needless to say, this was a minor side project with a time budget of one month, so we just ended up not storing any PII in the first place instead of bothering with archiving and removal.