On 2023-07-29 08:34 (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Some time ago and entirely by chance, I came across this site/image:
> https://www.printables.com/model/431413-illusion-cube

P.S. Can you Europeans please tell your parliament to repeal the cookies
notification law?  Those pop-ups are as useless as California prop 65
cancer warnings--except that the California warnings can be ignored.  I
am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
theories about microchips in the vaccines.)

Post a reply to this message

Op 29-7-2023 om 19:35 schreef Cousin Ricky:
> On 2023-07-29 08:34 (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Some time ago and entirely by chance, I came across this site/image:
>> https://www.printables.com/model/431413-illusion-cube
> 
> P.S. Can you Europeans please tell your parliament to repeal the cookies
> notification law?  Those pop-ups are as useless as California prop 65
> cancer warnings--except that the California warnings can be ignored.  I
> am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
> every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
> configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
> they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
> theories about microchips in the vaccines.)
> 

What are you complaining about? I just don't see/understand what /your 
web browser/ has to do with /mine/... (or with any settings).

Have a good day.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ...
> P.S. Can you Europeans please tell your parliament to repeal the cookies
> notification law?  Those pop-ups are as useless as California prop 65
> cancer warnings--except that the California warnings can be ignored.

living in the UK I see the same as-useless-as pop-ups.  I guess you'll need to
re-phrase "you Europeans" as "you Europeans who are part of the European Union".
 (though pithier wording comes to mind :-))


> I am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
> every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
> configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
> they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
> theories about microchips in the vaccines.)

disagree, frankly.  no one is "forced".  personally, I tend to visit a new URL
in an "incognito" window, and if the first thing I see is a pop-up, I close the
window, done.  fwiw I do think that companies need to up their "ethical game".
ie there is no need for any company to dump _their_ shit in (my) "local
storage", be it cookies or db, unless and until I do something on their site
necessitating that store, perhaps put "an item" into the "shopping cart".  "cuts
both ways".


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 30-7-2023 om 16:56 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> ...
>> P.S. Can you Europeans please tell your parliament to repeal the cookies
>> notification law?  Those pop-ups are as useless as California prop 65
>> cancer warnings--except that the California warnings can be ignored.
> 
> living in the UK I see the same as-useless-as pop-ups.  I guess you'll need to
> re-phrase "you Europeans" as "you Europeans who are part of the European Union".
>   (though pithier wording comes to mind :-))
> 
> 
>> I am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
>> every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
>> configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
>> they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
>> theories about microchips in the vaccines.)
> 
> disagree, frankly.  no one is "forced".  personally, I tend to visit a new URL
> in an "incognito" window, and if the first thing I see is a pop-up, I close the
> window, done.  fwiw I do think that companies need to up their "ethical game".
> ie there is no need for any company to dump _their_ shit in (my) "local
> storage", be it cookies or db, unless and until I do something on their site
> necessitating that store, perhaps put "an item" into the "shopping cart".  "cuts
> both ways".
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

Btw, Firefox has excellent extensions which suppress pop-ups, cookies, 
and such. In addition, it has a privacy mode. I am almost never troubled 
by those things.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 30-7-2023 om 16:56 schreef jr:
> > Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
> >> every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
> >> configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
> >> they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
> >> theories about microchips in the vaccines.)
> >
> > disagree, frankly.  no one is "forced".  personally, I tend to visit a new URL
> > in an "incognito" window, and if the first thing I see is a pop-up, I close the
> > window, done.  fwiw I do think that companies need to up their "ethical game".
>
> Btw, Firefox has excellent extensions which suppress pop-ups, cookies,
> and such. In addition, it has a privacy mode. I am almost never troubled
> by those things.

:-)  no FF (or TB) here.  with Chrome I choose to nuke all the stored stuff on
browser exit/close; bg - I use one instance "permanently", with my Gmail tab,
some POV-Ray and other reference tabs; I open a new "incognito" window ("privacy
mode" will be similar I guess) to .. explore.  that leaves cookies I "approve
of", like eg online banking, in place as the "permanent" window never closes.
Chrome does have extensions for ad + pop-up "blocking" and such, too, though I
don't use any.  I have some sympathy for CR's irateness (and no good reply), but
suspect that your approach of using s/ware to .. defeat the nefarious :-) may
have little impact wrt encouraging companies to change behaviour (eg to not
simply store references to themselves and their affiliates "by default"), and
perhaps further "stokes the arms race".  anyway, </> before it turns into a
rant.

(feeling a little too gregarious, must lie down.. ;-))


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 30/07/2023 om 18:25 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 30-7-2023 om 16:56 schreef jr:
>>> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I am tired of being forced to interact with damn pop-ups just to look at
>>>> every damn website, just because a few people who can't be bothered to
>>>> configure their Web browser are paranoid about their privacy.  (I bet
>>>> they're the same people who use their cell phones to spread conspiracy
>>>> theories about microchips in the vaccines.)
>>>
>>> disagree, frankly.  no one is "forced".  personally, I tend to visit a new URL
>>> in an "incognito" window, and if the first thing I see is a pop-up, I close the
>>> window, done.  fwiw I do think that companies need to up their "ethical game".
>>
>> Btw, Firefox has excellent extensions which suppress pop-ups, cookies,
>> and such. In addition, it has a privacy mode. I am almost never troubled
>> by those things.
> 
> :-)  no FF (or TB) here.  with Chrome I choose to nuke all the stored stuff on
> browser exit/close; bg - I use one instance "permanently", with my Gmail tab,
> some POV-Ray and other reference tabs; I open a new "incognito" window ("privacy
> mode" will be similar I guess) to .. explore.  that leaves cookies I "approve
> of", like eg online banking, in place as the "permanent" window never closes.
> Chrome does have extensions for ad + pop-up "blocking" and such, too, though I
> don't use any.  I have some sympathy for CR's irateness (and no good reply), but
> suspect that your approach of using s/ware to .. defeat the nefarious :-) may
> have little impact wrt encouraging companies to change behaviour (eg to not
> simply store references to themselves and their affiliates "by default"), and
> perhaps further "stokes the arms race".  anyway, </> before it turns into a
> rant.
> 
> (feeling a little too gregarious, must lie down.. ;-))
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 
I understand. Nothing is entirely perfect in this world, so we have to 
cope as best we can :-|  I have a subscription here to a non-profit 
consumers journal for digital matters, and for years they warn about and 
give help/advice about these things, particularly privacy. They are very 
positive about FF and TB and somewhat neutral to negative about Chrome. 
Google and MS are not really their friends were privacy is concerned 
obviously...
Things I do additionally is regularly "nuke" (as you say) all the stored 
cookies and such flotsam left behind by the eager watchers, and scan the 
system for any remaining stuff. And - obviously again - I do not use nor 
approach any of the social media (the POV-Ray ng's being the only 
exceptions) nor do I buy if I can help it, online. I firmly believe that 
only strict official regulation can restrict misuse and I certainly 
approve of the European Parliament's actions, especially as the US in 
particular does not seem to do much in that respect (but I may be wrong 
of course). 'Free enterprise', liberalism, and even free speech, have 
their (moral) limits.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> ...
> consumers journal for digital matters, and for years they warn about and
> give help/advice about these things, particularly privacy. They are very
> positive about FF and TB and somewhat neutral to negative about Chrome.
> Google and MS are not really their friends were privacy is concerned
> obviously...

they/you are not wrong, all of the "big names", even the geniuses who use a
rodent with a single button, require one to "hold one's nose" I'd say.

still, I do pay Google money -- a small amount -- annually, figuring that since
my data now is actually theirs, they will look after it a little better. ;-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 1-8-2023 om 13:33 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> ...
>> consumers journal for digital matters, and for years they warn about and
>> give help/advice about these things, particularly privacy. They are very
>> positive about FF and TB and somewhat neutral to negative about Chrome.
>> Google and MS are not really their friends were privacy is concerned
>> obviously...
> 
> they/you are not wrong, all of the "big names", even the geniuses who use a
> rodent with a single button, require one to "hold one's nose" I'd say.
> 
> still, I do pay Google money -- a small amount -- annually, figuring that since
> my data now is actually theirs, they will look after it a little better. ;-)
> 
True. I should correct myself here by stating that they are above all 
criticised because of their own use of private data from their users.

Incidentally, there are at this moment three lawsuits from consumers 
organisations within the EU: One against Facebook which was fined 1.2 
billion Euros In May 2023; one against TikTok, and one against Google. 
The last two are still under way.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> [...] personally, I tend to visit a new URL in an "incognito" window [...]

This is the way. I do this (in FF), not because I think it it protects me from
being tracked completely (it doesn't), but because it keeps my searches from
being curated. It seems like today's web is all about trapping you into a tiny
box and selling you things it thinks are in your best interests at every turn.

> :-)  no FF (or TB) here.

You might want to change your mind about that, since I heard Chromium-based
browsers will be making it harder (if not impossible) to use ad blockers in the
near future.

(rant incoming)

I'm done with ads. I hate them. I grew up watching them on TV and seeing them in
magazines, and I have had my fill. Here's a great Banksy quote about
advertising:

~~~

    "People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life,
take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall
buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that
imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the
most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with
it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

    You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property
rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they
like with total impunity.

    Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you
see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do
whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock
someone just threw at your head.

    You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe
them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put
themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even
start asking for theirs."

~~~

If I lived in the city, I would probably be spray-painting billboards, haha.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Op 08/08/2023 om 01:05 schreef Samuel B.:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> [...] personally, I tend to visit a new URL in an "incognito" window [...]
> 
> This is the way. I do this (in FF), not because I think it it protects me from
> being tracked completely (it doesn't), but because it keeps my searches from
> being curated. It seems like today's web is all about trapping you into a tiny
> box and selling you things it thinks are in your best interests at every turn.
> 
>> :-)  no FF (or TB) here.
> 
> You might want to change your mind about that, since I heard Chromium-based
> browsers will be making it harder (if not impossible) to use ad blockers in the
> near future.
> 
> (rant incoming)
> 
> I'm done with ads. I hate them. I grew up watching them on TV and seeing them in
> magazines, and I have had my fill. Here's a great Banksy quote about
> advertising:
> 
> ~~~
> 
>      "People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life,
> take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall
> buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that
> imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
> They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the
> most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with
> it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
> 
>      You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property
> rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they
> like with total impunity.
> 
>      Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you
> see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do
> whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock
> someone just threw at your head.
> 
>      You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe
> them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put
> themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even
> start asking for theirs."
> 
> ~~~
> 
> If I lived in the city, I would probably be spray-painting billboards, haha.
> 
> Sam
> 
Ha Ha! My gospel this! :-)

[note: I /think/ that here in Western Europe, we are a little bit more 
protected from all this than in the US...]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message