Login
You're viewing the mastodon.green public feed.

Replies

  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Aug 19, 2024, 1:16 PM

    @erlend @eob @eff Yes, that one could be in there! Frankly, the problem we faced has been more there being too much to say, reference, and explain than not enough. There's a *lot* of excellent content out there and the primary problem is more that web people have been ignoring it forever. The most frequent complaint about the document is that it's too long.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Aug 19, 2024, 11:29 AM

    @eob @ariezra has also written a great book "industry unbound" on how corps architect privacy compliance regimes to stymie the efforts of privacy professionals to actually achieve privacy for users and generally steer them into box-checking despite the best good-faith efforts of people employed under the banner of privacy protection. another definition of privacy labour

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Aug 20, 2024, 7:10 PM

    @eob well, yeah, we should bill the GAFAM for wasting our time.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Aug 21, 2024, 1:58 PM

    @eob I'm not 100% sure about that wording though, it looks like they're saying you shouldn't ask consent and process anyway 🤔

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Aug 21, 2024, 6:31 PM

    @eob Why is this coming from the W3C? Aren't they a consortium of organisations making money from data that they collect on us?

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Aug 22, 2024, 2:44 PM

    @reinierl The W3C is a standards body for Web and Web-related technologies

    And although many of its members are tech companies, its membership also included non-profits, universities, and government organizations

    And many of its standards are not particularly profit driven

    For example, the ActivityPub protocol that this conversation is happening over is a W3C standard, and it's pretty subversive in its effects on the business models of the Internet

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0