tldr: undefined constants were treated as a string (+ a warning), so `$x = FOO` was `$x = "FOO"` + a warning if `FOO` was not a defined constant. Thankfully this feature was removed in PHP 8.
Or just ban this kind of data collection. Is there any reason anyone would willingly click "Accept" when a website asks to share your data with 500+ partner sites?
For that matter, companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners." Partners comes with an implication of being somewhat equal or at least on trusting terms. The companies selling our data don't trust these companies. They probably don't even know their names.
If the data is being sold, it should be legally required to word it in that way. If there's even the slightest possibility of your data being leaked to spammers, it should be worded to reflect that.
"Do you consent to us selling your data to any party that wishes to buy your data? Do you consent to the possibility that your data will be used to spam you or steal your identity in the future? Yes/No"
The word "partner" lost its meaning completely. Each business relation is a "partner" these days. Guess it sounds nicer than "company that pays me to do stuff and bug you about"
I'm not sure all these relationships are monetary.
It may even be the case that the website pays X company to perform the tracking for their own analytics purposes. Or that it's X company's own freemium model where if you add their tracker they grant you a bunch of cross-site information for free.
In 99.9% of cases defining legitimate use is simple. There should be legal consequences for data sharing that is not actual legitimate use. I see companies making absurd claims about what consent based on "legitimate interest" can mean. No, sharing data with advertising "partners" is not based on any legitimate interest. If these companies were getting some strong fines for illegal stuff like this, then they would cut the bs.
I think banned it a bit too strong. However there needs to be strong regulations on what can be shared.
If I go to an ER in a different area (read different medical system) I want my doctor to share personal data. I don't want my doctor to share my personal data with a random doctor in the same medical system unless that other doctor is an expert being consulted on something about me. (that is just being a doctor doesn't give you access to my private information, it needs to be on a need to know).
The above is the obvious case. There are likely other cases that are not obvious where after looking closely private information should be shared. Advertisement is never one of those reasons though, and analytics is only a reason if they anonymize the data with prison terms for mistakes.
Indiscriminate sharing of personal data IS banned under the GDPR.
If you collect personal data, you must only collect it for the stated purpose and can't sell or share it for any other reason.
I continue to be astounded at the ignorance some people have of the GDPR; a vital privacy law and one that is fundamental to modern data use and respect for the customer.
> companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners."
They are under the GDPR.
If you ask for my data, you must do so fairly and tell me what you are using it for.
In the examples you site, if you read the small print "sharing with partners" will go on to say advertising 'letting you know about products and services' and other such shite.
Targeted ads generally bring in 3x the revenue of generic ads. Personally speaking, I'd rather have 1/3rd the ads on a page and allow my data to be tracked. I don't mind my data being tracked, and I'd rather see ads for keyboards / mens clothes (what I buy) than diapers / ladies shoes (who knows what tomorrow holds, but this is not what I'm buying at the moment).
1. Targeted ads being more profitable has no relevance to the number of ads on the page. Advertisers will always try to maximize the number of ads and potential profits regardless of profitability.
2. Contextual ads are not targeted and would not be showing you adverts for diapers or ladies shoes- unless you are reading about diapers or ladies shoes.
The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance.
No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.
No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.
The single most powerful lobby, by far, to the point that it is essentially the only lobby, is the enormous mass of people who refuse to pay money for content. Absolutely refuse.
Even when you give them the option to pay, with no ads or tracking, the conversion rate is still around 0.5-1%.
People are willing to pay for things they value. Those people who "refuse to pay money for content" probably go to the cinema, perhaps purchase magazines, purchase drinks with friends, etc.
We should however make it easier to pay for content online; let's implement HTTP 402 and integrate it into the users' browser and internet bill to reduce friction. Who wants to create an account and enter their credit card details to read a single article or watch a single video?
No, they overwhelmingly are not. When given the opportunity to not pay, and do so anonymously (no social shame), the actual pay rates drop to the 1-5% range.
This is a clear trend from thousands of creators who give simple payment options to those who wish to support them directly. The conversion rates from "ad-supported (but blocked)" to "paying member" are usually around 5% of the active audience.
The numbers are atrocious despite the deafening virtue signalling of comment sections ("I always pay creators to support them!")
You just assert "no" to my suggestion that people don't pay for these things because they just don't value them enough to pay for them, which doesn't really move the conversation forward. There's loadsa stuff more important in life than youtube videos so it's unsurprising the conversion rate is low.
My point is that the value prop breaks when people can shamelessly be dishonest.
If people actually didn't value the content, they wouldn't devote their time to it. I don't know anyone who regularly devotes hours a day to something they get zero value from...
I think this is a pricing and billing problem more than a "people only want free shit" problem.
All the paywalled news agencies want a monthly subscription. But I, as someone who doesn't like getting all their news from a single source, am not interested in signing up for news subscriptions because the cost would pile up fast, and to be honest I don't read that many news articles in a given month.
I think we need some kind of usage based billing system where participating outlets can set a price per article, and users can agree to be billed for that article when they go to view it.
Eh. I've not seen any convincing arguments about this, especially because the quality of said content was dragged down specifically to support ad revenue and SEO. We really never saw the potential of an internet with microtransactions, largely because Google explicitly decided to force people to use ads.
>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.
I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.
Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.
Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising.
You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised.
Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.
Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top.
For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?
not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more
In some sense, "no one wants to be advertised to" is similar to "no one wants to pay for stuff". Like yeah it'd be nice if my groceries were free, but that's not very realistic, the grocery store would just close if they had to give everything away. Advertising is similar - a cost we pay so that websites can make some money in exchange for their services. Most ad supported websites would just disappear without them.
In some sense I agree but there is a fundamental difference. I pay for my groceries because I have the fundamental need for sustenance, and that requires land and toil. I have neither and therefore I pay someone else; but for me to survive it is necessary that _someone_ perform that work.
My need for websites is much less predominant and really I could live without. So of course I bounce when mildly interesting websites ask to host cookies on my browser or want me to create an account and enter my card details.
If one considers maximizing utility the goal of economic science, then this is in fact good, as it redirects me to more useful venues like doing chores I'd been putting off instead of mindlessly scrolling online. Some metrics such as GDP however might suffer.
I agree, the context of the website/topic/whatever should be more than enough to derive enough to load an add. On a hackerspace page? put up some rpi or DMM add. On rock music site? Thow up some vinyl adds or guitar tabs. Etc.
Guess what, those banners are still up because it's pretty hard to actually bring the banhammer. At best you have too small team working with huge backlog
On this note, this is a good reminder that if you don’t collect information in this way, your website is under no obligation to provide a cookie banner.
Any website that uses a cookie banner is going above and beyond what they need to do to run a functional website in order to track you.
Yes, we live in a society. You aren't allowed to do anything you want. But you are wrong. You had no option before, now you have. How is that taking away freedom from you?
Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership.
If my 'data' is a no logs vpn address with a privacy hardened browser running in a VM on an isolated VLAN with encrypted DNS then why wouldn't I just laugh and click accept cookies in a sandboxed tab (so said cookies only exist for that tab and are cleared when it is closed.
What youre saying most users dont have this level of privacy by default? Why not?
>Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership.
GDPR article 7, section 4: When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account
shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract,
including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the
processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of
that contract.
basically: A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service
Major news outlets doing it are willing to argue it is okay. They are a membership only news publication with a free viewing option in their books.
Iirc it boils down to the fact the user still has a choice.
Either way your interpretation of GDPR and several major news outlets clearly differ, and i would bet my house on them having access to better legal advice than you.
> Following my ill-defined "Tarsnap doesn't have an SLA but I'll give people
credits for outages when it seems fair" policy, I credited everyone's Tarsnap accounts with 50% of a month's storage costs.
So in this case the downtime was roughly 26 hours, and the refund was for 50% of a month, so that's more than a 1-1 downtime refund.
Most "legacy" hosts do yes. The norm used to be a percentage of your bill for every hour of downtime once uptime dropped below 99.9%. If the outage was big enough you'd get credit exceeding your bill, and many would allow credit withdrawal in those circumstances. There were still limits to protect the host but there was a much better SLA in place.
Cloud providers just never adopted that and the "ha, sucks to be you" mentality they have became the norm.
Depends on which service you're paying for. For pure hosting the answer is no, which is why it rarely makes sense to go AWS for uptime and stability because when it goes down there's nothing you can do. As opposed to bare metal hosting with redundancy across data centers, which can even cost less than AWS for a lot of common workloads.
What is the right way to make ripgrep behave closer to `git grep`? Plain `rg` ignores files inside hidden folders like `.github`, `rg --hidden` will search `.github` but also search inside `.git`. I currently have this alias that I don't remember where I found: `rg --hidden --glob '!*/.git/*'`. Is there a better way?
I would prefer a solution that works from outside git repos, so no piping `git ls-files` into rg.
That is, you can whitelist specific hidden files/directories.
There is no way to tell ripgrep to "search precisely the set of tracked files in git." ripgrep doesn't read git repository state. It just looks at gitignore files and automatically ignores all hidden and binary files. So it make it work more like git, you might consider whitelisting the hidden files you want to search. To make it work exactly like git, you need to do the `git ls-files -z | xargs -0 rg ...` dance.
I'm not sure how they are going to make money from this. LinkedIn has to be one of the most worthless dataset in existence for training an AI, half of it already looks generated by a LLM itself and the rest is low value content.
Even if it was free I wouldn't include it in AI training.
I would like to think this will go towards the upper bounds (up to 4% of global revenue), as they are doing so wilfully and to a large number of users. This is exactly the showcase the EU needs to make an example of how not to abuse the legitimate interest exceptions.
Its a really stupid time to test the EU over something that cant have much net value to LinkedIn - a 1bn EUR fine (approx 4% of LinkedIns revenue) is well within the current internal "cap" the EU have reached with issuance of fines.
But who knows. The EU is much more patient than I, and prefers boiling frogs to scalding them.
Have you thought about licensing future additions to WordPress under AGPL? I believe it can be done [1]. This will disallow private forks and require companies to publish any changes they make.
It would disallow private forks of WordPress (require them to share the modifications) but I don't know whether WPEngine and other hosts have any private modifications or they all use stock WordPress.
tldr: undefined constants were treated as a string (+ a warning), so `$x = FOO` was `$x = "FOO"` + a warning if `FOO` was not a defined constant. Thankfully this feature was removed in PHP 8.