• moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      47 minutes ago

      after reloading the page in a private session, it said that it was my first time here again. I am a bit disappointed

      edit: it also said I read it all the way down again, despite the fact that I didn’t

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Nice machine, by the way. a Linux box (of course it is).

    Well now either that’s passive-aggressive or aggressive-passive.

  • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 hours ago

    There’s one thing this site gets wrong. And it’s central for their mission to correct that. Because I guess everyone else does get that wrong, too. Very likely including those guys who do the profiling (although their wage probably depends on not realizing that mistake):

    You do not need cookie banners to ask for consent to set a cookie. You are required to ask for consent to process people’s information, to profile them, stalk them, fingerprint them. Cookies are one of the ways to do that. But not the only way.

    This site - as basically every other site using ad providers - did all of this without asking for consent, but was required to ask. At least for visitors from the EU (like me). It didn’t matter that they didn’t use any cookies for it. They need to ask and they need to respect a rejection. It’s also not ok to do it and just say that everyone else does so, too.

    That’s the message that should come across. Not “hey look what we can do without cookies”. It’s “hey, cookies are a scapegoat. We don’t need them. We’d have to ask for consent but since everyone is so preoccupied with cookies, we just didn’t. Like all this ad tech companies spying on you didn’t ask, too. They should be held accountable.”

  • Lauchmelder@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It detected a bunch of databases running on localhost. Which is weird because although all of the DBs it detected are present in my network, they’re not on localhost. How did it figure that out?

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m 1 in millions, that’s what I got out of this, lol. Fr, this is kind of scary even though I knew it was like this.