WE VALUE YOUR PRIVACY!*
*no we don't. not even a little.
77No, I think they're being literal. There is value that they want in your privacy.
65- We value your privacy (in a twisted way)
- Our company's value (increases with access to) your privacy
Or the idea of the title and text was to create a paradox like: The following statement is true. // The preceding statement is false.
25
We value your privacy. We're selling it.
66Gold
7
797 partners? Might need to get tested haha
65whoever put that "reject all"s are mandatory should be getting praised.
it would suck to individually reject those 797 "partners".
50This button doesn't often work as you'd expect. Websites/Apps can (and do) still approve so called "legitimate interest" option. The only way to be sure is to click "manage preferences" and dig in to check if legitimate interest is enabled. Sometimes you'll see "object all" in there, but some websites require to manually disable legitimate interest for each of the hundreds of partners manually.
44this could be its own twilight zone episode
fuck
14Recently a pirate website for music, free-mp3-download.net got updated with this crap included. You have to toggle it off every time. All vendors separately. I took a stopwatch, it takes me around 2 minutes and 50 seconds.
Sounds friendly.13I hate this. There is nothing legitimate about it. It's one of the biggest insults anyone ever gave me.
3Or just handle "legitimate interest" (i.e. page works) client side.
2
There will be some lawsuit in the future somewhere in Europe. And the judge will rightfully rule that you can't get an "informed consent" from your users for 800 tracking companies just by letting them click a button with dark patterns.
26Europe for sure. USA? Better chance of the president smoking rock at the state of the union. Land of the fee and all that.
5
"We respect your privacy to the extent the law requires us to. Maybe."
26I respect that you want it to be a small birthday party.
Me and my 718 closest friends will be there..
25Anything ran by Microsoft is a privacy concern (includes Windows, Teams, npm, GitHub)
21npm?! Since when?
11Looks like early last year. News to me, too
17
"We value your privacy". Proceeds to not value any kind of privacy at all
18"We valuated your privacy", more like
15At least they are (forced to be) honest ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I like the rest of the wording, too. They'd like to process arbitrary data from the device. And third parties act out of their own motivation as long as it is their legitimate interest...
Use 'REJECT ALL'.
15REJECT ALL button doesn't often work as you'd expect. Websites/Apps can (and do) still approve so called "legitimate interest" option. The only way to be sure is to click "manage preferences" and dig in to check if legitimate interest is enabled. Sometimes you'll see "object all" in there, but you will find notice that some websites require to manually disable legitimate interest for each of the hundreds of partners manually.
14Hehe, keep up spreading that important info 💪✌️. Most people aren't aware and this practice should be illegal. Reject ALL... Every word they say is just a fucking lie.
8That's why I reject all in Firefox settings along with wiping everything at close
4I guess 'Reject All' means just 'reject all of the above', and there are are additional terms that are binding, they just spared you from handling those with this popup, or why is that kind of thing legal?
3
They do value your privacy very expensively!
14What's worse is when it's accept all or manage preferences, and you manually have to turn off cookies for all 718 partners individually, every time you open the app.
14Consent-o-matic automates that for you
6So does uninstalling and not using it
2Not for apps.
1
They do infact value your privacy. Only to them it is of low value
13They spelled "violate" wrong.
12Use Fairmail/ K-9 mail instead.
10Even better
skiff, protonmail, tuta8
10The correct syntax for embedding images is:
4[title] is technically [alt text] for readers and vision impaired, so the title should be more of a description of the image.
1
I'd say they're not lying. They do value your privacy. It's making them, and 797 of their closest friends, a lot of money.
6That's why F-Droid exists.
6"If you have to ask, you do not respect my privacy"
5Is this Facebook?
4Hundreds of partners is very common in news paper sites
2I don't think facebook shares much data to other companies, they have more to gain by keeping it to themselves and having all the data to serve their billions of users personnalized ads. Basically the same as Google, they don't really sell your data. For these companies I never really liked the phrase that says you are the product, youre not really the product, you are what makes their product. If a company sold your data plainly, then yes in thsi case you are the product
0
Imagine applying to private university and reading their privacy policy, where they clearly say, how they get your private information from third parties and share all info with third parties. And when you ask administrator, how can i prevent them from doing that, they say, that they do not share/get info from/to thirdparties. Bravo
4Sounds like an easy lawsuit
2
Please dont post pictures of text without linking to the source or transcribing it. Blind folks can't read it.
4Genuine question, can screen readers not parse image text in 2024? I personally use some image text to text copy programs on Linux to help speed up my development workflow, so it seems good screen readers have already had this for years?
4Ocr can be pretty hit and miss depending on the font, image quality, etc
1
Accept all, then block it with Adguard with HTTPS Filter enabled for that app
-6Why? What is the benefit?
6Close the app and find another one.
3Honestly i would not ever touch outlook outside tor session
1That... doesn't work how you apparently think it does.
1
