-4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
-4 points (47.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43944 readers
519 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Suppose you encounter a property. It says "no trespassing" on it. However, it has no security, and you realize under no circumstances will there be consequences if you snuck in and did whatever you want, not even disappointment, even though a sign specifies it would be frowned upon. Would that make it moral?
When people modify an experience like this, they're always thinking of themselves. If people could cover billboards along a road with toilet paper, I'm sure they'd do it, even though there's a reason they're there. It might be a weird place to redirect to, but someone explains perfectly here towards the end. A place's choice of maintenance is a part of its boundaries. Being courteous is the least one can do.
That’s a faulty comparison for so many reasons it’s hard to pick where to begin tbh.
It says in the TOS that ads are a thing and will remain a thing. If they gave me a button that makes them poof, it wouldn't change that.
There is a lot of nuance here you seem to be glossing over or maybe aren’t aware of. I don’t go out of my way to block YouTube ads as-displayed (usually videos) because the relationship with the actual ad is very clear. However, I do use a VPN, little snitch mini, and other extension/software when I am browsing YouTube. Just because I clicked on your website does not mean I willingly consented to your vacuuming every little detail about me to then package and sell to other parties or leverage to “better serve me ads.”
ToS aren’t a moral imperative, they aren’t even legal one. Companies are welcome to try within the bounds of the law (which they regularly break mind you) to learn info about me. And I am within my rights to make that information as opaque as possible. It is not a moral duty to let Google figure out someone’s menstrual cycle or who you plan to vote for simply because you looked up a cocktail recipe or something.
Why do you think most websites today come with a "this website uses cookies" agreement at the top or bottom of the screen even before you sign up? By pressing "I agree", one could say you're saying you agree. You might argue "but I didn't sign up for the website", but it's not like someone out there can gatekeep what is considered "signing up". A TOS in any form is a contract, and what goes on within a website is up to its creators who made it. To use another semi-analogy, you might notice a certain place has a video camera recording its surroundings, and you might say it's wrong they think they can record you willy-nilly, although on the other hand, if you know it's there, it can also be asked what you're doing there if you don't want to be recorded.
Hjsjdhejisj
In what way is it a law? I haven't heard of this, unless we're interpreting a certain law differently.
asfasfd
Those laws don't completely outlaw usage of cookies though, they just say courtesy has to be followed when doing so.
Huhndhdjsjs
I'm not a troll, I just know enough to respect when people running a website want to use their rightful authority as its owners to gather information, at least on a moral basis, versus when it is on an immoral basis, which would be if it's deceptive.
safasdf
A website (at least those that end in dot com) are private property. It would be like recording footage of someone in your own home. All you need for that is basic transparency.
asdfasfsadf
I am talking about both legality and morality, but they both refer to different aspects of all of this. For my case, I go by morality, but that doesn't mean certain aspects are necessarily illegal either. Selling info to a third party isn't a necessary part of the equation and not a part of what I was saying when I implied "as long as it's not deceptive".
asfasfasdfs
At the same time, a website has no legal or moral obligation to be of service to anyone.
asdfasdf
When you use a website, they have the option to turn it into an agreement. If this is employed in such a way that it follows how agreements should work, none of this would be an issue. That isn't random. Have you never heard the adage "property is nine tenths of the law"?
asdfasfasdf