this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
321 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This episode of Security Now covered Google's plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google's proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user's identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What's your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

  • Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
  • What's all the fuss about, you don't care?
  • Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
  • Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
  • Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
  • Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?
  • Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Here's an example.

I was advertised camel smokes as a kid.

Everytime I relapse it's on camels. Camels are shitty and cheap.

I relapse and then switch to a brand that's not garbage. Then figure out again how to beat the addiction.

It's a substance use disorder directly caused by advertising. And cancer causing (so my physical environment).

Here's another mental illness that's very easy to trace back to advertising.

Eating disorders.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I think those are good examples, thanks.

Off topic: I don't smoke, but do generally hate smoking so much. I dislike the smell, and the affects on people around the user, like you said. I appreciate vaping. Not because of some hopeful idea that it would be safer, but cause I either can't smell it, or it smells like cotton candy. Who doesn't love the smell of cotton candy?

Also, props for quitting all the times you have. I'm probably majorly addicted to caffeine. Like smokers tell me they have one first thing in the morning, coffee is the first desire after I'm out of bed. I've already limited myself to two-ish cups/day, but I don't think that helped. Coffee also has negative effects on others...fortunately, my wife has coffee breath too :)

[–] iquanyin@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

just to say, it's about 95% less full of harmful chemicals. even opponents admit that. vaping is safer. not safe but safer. and unlike the 200+ times i tried to quite over 45 years (hypnosis, gum, patch, groups, acupuncture, and a heap 'cold turkey), it took me just a few years to quit by first switching to vapes. and within a month of the switch, i felt better in every way. all the bs restrictions in place are so dumb.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 2 points 9 months ago

I'm glad that helped. Was it the ability to dose down intentionally that helped?

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's also more addictive than tobacco. Which isn't saying it's not safer. But the vape ROA hits the brain faster than smoking. This reinforces the addiction cycle more effectively. One of the reasons crack cocaine is so fucking addictive. It's vaped cocaine.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No the other way around. Smoking hits you very fast, almost instantly because it's very fine particles that pass into the bloodstream. Vaping is much slower because it's vaporized droplets that get absorbed slowly through mucus membrane, and it's less effective (like 50% effective after 30 min vs. 100% after 5 min). Nicotine salt e-liquid "improves" that a bit to hit faster, to help people stop smoking. You can find articles and papers on this.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Huh... I was basing this info off huberman labs episode on nicotine. He's usually very accurate (he's a neurobiologist and a professor at a major university)

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Vaping has associated the smell of cotton candy with assholes who can't keep their smelly (and potentially dangerous) substance abuse away from unconsenting people, because they think no one will mind because it smells like cotton candy.

Edit: I legitimately prefer the smell of cigarettes at this point. At least no one's deluding themselves about the social acceptability of that.

[–] iquanyin@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

let's ban it along with cooking smells, car exhaust, perfume, and cheap deodorant. and any other smells you personally don't like. sound good?

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I should just let this go, but part of what offends me about vaping is that people will do it instead of smoking in spaces where smoking is explicitly banned. Since it's smoking adjacent to me mentally (and to a limited extent in causing harm to third parties), I dislike that. And we do ban things like perfume in gyms because it causes unreasonably unpleasant experiences for the people around you, and I shower after grilling or frying if I'm going out, because it is unpleasant for the people around me. It's different degrees of unpleasantness for everything, but I don't think it's unfair for me to dislike people blowing vape clouds in my face indoors.

[–] iquanyin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

where i live, you can’t vape where you can’t smoke, so we don’t have that issue. i can see how it would bug people, for sure.

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Just saying that second hand vaping exposure seems to be something that isn't well understood, but potentially harmful. Just like how vaping is proving not to be harmless to the paper these days. That's what differentiates it from those other smells you're mentioning to me.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Car exhaust is so much worse for you than vaping. Much less second hand vaping.

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

That's fair, I did miss car exhaust from that list with my previous comment.

[–] iquanyin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

it’s the same stuff as in digger machines at shows. anyway, in my town you can vape whet you can smoke. which is outside.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

cooking smells

I wonder if the smell of hamburger is offensive to vegans?

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lol, since when are Camels cheap?

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I was referring to quality lol

I can buy a pack of American Spirits and half a smoke will satisfy me.

I finish a Camel, and I'm like, wtf happened to that thing?