Former landed gentry.
Recording home videos for personal use within your immediate family was protected. Screening for people beyond that was not. Mr. Rogers famously gave us what little protection we had and insured that we could even have home VHS recorders. Testified before a congressional committee that was on the verge of banning it, changed one critical mind and that stopped it.
I didn’t realize there was a problem. So did all the streaming services fuck up the colors or something?
If you use a reputable VPN like Proton or Mullvad to torrent the occasional movie/show and don’t torrent without it it’s incredibly unlikely you’ll get caught. Beyond that it’s completely about what you’re doing online and VPN’s are not magic bullets for all things. But for torrenting, it’s good enough 99.99999% of the time.
If you’re constantly torrenting hundreds of things a month, especially new releases, yeah you should do more. But that’s not some dude grabbing a 60 year old movie one time. For your example a VPN will get the job done and their ISP will be none the wiser.
If someone bases their entire piracy knowledge on my one liner that’s on them and I’d be shocked to see that on this instance. I’m all for making sure we acknowledge all experience levels but you’re taking that a little too far here. I made a condom joke dude.
My dude you are over interpreting this. It was just a fun little joke. I have a lot more than a VPN guarding my system.
A condom also doesn’t solve all your problems but it’s a good foundation lol
“I’m going to offload my need to be technically literate in order to pirate to my local library and let them deal with the problem because I’m an entitled asshole who shits where I eat and doesn’t realize I’ll get in trouble anyway.”
VPN’s are the rubbers of the internet
The first sentence of the article establishes my argument
The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
It’s the means of creating their targeted advertising that is in question. Not the act of advertising itself.
You’re arguing as if it says “The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and having ads.” I encourage you to read the article If you haven’t already
It’s not about the advertising. It’s that you have to pay money to opt out of their aggressive data collection. The advertising is just one thing they do with your data.
The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
It’s the first sentence of the article.
If your bar is “we only have rights when it comes to things that we can’t live without“ then not only are you creating your own arbitrary standards that is not reflected in our society, but you should be angry if you think that’s how things work.
You have rights dude. Stop trying to win an online argument/defending business in such a bizarre way. There are limits to what they can do whether they re essential services or not.
Besides, you have kind of lost the thread here. It’s not about whether or not they can advertise or charge. It’s about how they collect and use your data in service of advertising (and more). It’s in the first sentence of the article.
The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
Facebook is free to have an ad tier and a pay tier. It’s about the data they collect and how it’s used.
You are presenting a false dichotomy and ads do not have to infringe on your privacy to the degree Facebook does it. There are gradients.
You’re reducing these arguments so much they’re losing the nuance that warrants the entire discussion. You’re also calling me childish to boot, which doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of this conversation
beyond how it infringes on them
I’m playing Devil’s advocate
Don’t it’s obnoxious and not insightful. It’s how teens test drive arguments without repercussions.
They can’t assign any concessions they wants that’s the entire point. You have rights you can’t sign away even if you want to. I mean dude you’re defending facebook, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy. Your assumption should be they are probably wrong until proven otherwise.
I never said anything of the sort and I don’t know why whether or not the service is mandatory matters. That isn’t the bar for us to have consumer/privacy rights.
deleted by creator
What does the monetization scheme have to do with whether or not we have consumer and privacy rights beyond how it infringes on them?
You’re free to not own or use a car. Should we have no rights when it comes to cars as well?
You’re free to not use the internet. Should we have no rights online?
The beauty of working in video production is I always have a tool I can run stuff through for very legal and very cool capture purposes.