Fuck sites that have a multiple page cookie policy page and no reject all button.
My default browsers, on mobile and desktop, both open incognito/private tabs by default.
I'll still click no, or don't accept, if it pops up, but when a page is shitty like this, I'm not too worried about them collecting data on how I browser this page while reading this one article.
AFAIK, incognito mode will only protect you from reading multiple articles on their site, no difference for a single one.
Incognito mode will basically put all the cookies and other site data into a temp directory.
So, they can track you across that session as long as you keep it open, like if you went from the article to your banking or online shopping websites.
But, once you close out of that session, that directory should be cleared.
Just make sure you don't use incognito or private modes with a bunch of sites, at the same time, that you don't want to share information between.
Or just use Firefox with enhanced protection turned on. Websites become pretty containerized. Incognito mode just becomes a "don't save this in my history" thing.
No.... Containers are just sandboxed normal browsing sessions.
The cookies and other site data they gather, will remain and able to track your browsing habits within that container, until you clear it. But it can be sustained between browsing sessions, for months or years at a time.
They're very useful, and I highly recommend using them, but they're nowhere near as convenient as opening up a single incognito tab to read a shitty article on a shitty website. Once I'm done reading it, all I have to do is close that incognito session, return to Lemmy, rinse and repeat.
Do whatever works best for you, but just be aware that you seem to be under some important misconceptions about what data is saved between different types of browsing sessions, or how certain privacy features work.
I wasn't talking about Containers though. I was under the impression that Enhanced Tracking Protection severely hampers cross-domain tracking.
Let me rephrase that: I am talking about containers, but more specifically about the fact that Firefox now sandboxes every domain within it's own little container, if you enable the proper options. Yes, your behavior on said site will persist until you clear your session data, but it will not follow you to other websites.
Disney put their content back into the vault?
90s kid shocked pikachu face
Man these kids now days don't understand the pain of the vaulting ....
If they watched the Olympics they may.
Pfft that guy is still accessing his content ~nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more 😉~
I mean, the vaulting was significantly less painful than this.
Many of these movies and shows were released as Disney plus exclusives in the last 4 years.
Meaning, there are no physical copies anywhere, and there is nowhere but the high seas to find this content now.
As a kid, I never gave a shit about the vault, because it's not like they came to your house and took the VHS away.
Yeah the Disney vault didn't really work back when you could go to the library (or back in those days blockbuster or family video) and rent the VHS or DVD after Disney stopped selling them
Delisted content should automatically be considered public commons/public domain. Also fuck Disney for bankrolling trade organizations lobbying copyright into the ground with 100+ years bs, there's no good argument for copyright over 5 years.
I hear these are all being hosted on jellyfin instead.
Popover to accept cookies, if you go to manage preferences there is no option to save your preferences.
Is there someone who understands / can explain the tax principles behind the removal? I see the term impairment charge mentioned in the article. Best I can tell, the company is saying their book value is higher than the actual value of the item, so they can take the loss and write it off. But why does that necessitate removing it?
Is this also the reason that Disney used to put stuff into "the vault" back in the day?
I'm all on board with piracy-first (I don't even bother to figure out how to pay for movies/TV anymore because piracy is so much more convenient), but I want to be able to explain to a layman why things are getting worse.
Not an accountant but I assume they have to pay members of the cast and crew for having it on their streaming service and, potentially license other content (like songs). In the contracts it'll say they have to pay a lump sum for removing it early and they have figured that this would be the cheaper option.
That makes sense, thanks.
The Princess was really entertaining. Like "The Raid" by literally Disney.
I skimmed through this and there's not a single thing here I care about.
The list is way smaller than I expected.
That's what she said!
Your body count?
Flora & Ulysses? Awe that was such a cute film. Also really liked Rosaline. Can't say any other films on this list jump out to me though.
How much do you suppose the music rights and residuals cost for these properties that Disney already owns? Is it insignificant? Would switching to a streaming model similar to the music industry change things (you only get paid per view)?
That is nothing new they always did this with cinemas and DVD/Blu rays too. You wanted to do a screening of the jungle book? You can't. You want to buy a box of your favorite movies, out of stock to create an artificial scarcity and demand for the Christmas season.
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
