It’s in the GDPR jurisdiction but Reddit accounts are anonymous AFAIK. IMO the GDPR does not protect anonymous data.
/cc @Gork@lemm.ee
The GDPR is a not a directive. It’s a regulation. Nontheless, I read that the GDPR was specifically mirrored into UK law with a couple minor modifications.
But to answer @automaton@lemmy.world, AFAIK the #GDPR does not apply in this situation anyway because Reddit accounts are “anonymous”. The GDPR only protects identified people.
This could be a way to get some plausible deniability for malice. Your car’s LiDAR must have been “accidentally” pointed at the doorbell across the street. Maybe a drone needs a LiDAR to prevent running into things too.
Right but the marker would cause problems for non-intrusive vending machines which only use a light sensor to set the display intensity. Along the lines of that simplicity, a thin smudge of chapstick would do well.. simple and lightweight. Light could enter but not an image.
Ah, right.. so how can @ChicoSuave@lemmy.world’s team of activists limit their destruction to the camera functionality? I wonder if a laser could perhaps burn the CCD enough to ruin image capture but not to the extent that light sensing fails.
I guess the more practical attack would be to superglue a piece of transparent diffusing film over it. Light would still get through but it would just be a blur. Diffusing film can be harvested from LCD screens we often see in dumpsters lately. Or even just that milky type of Scotch tape. Along the same lines, a scribe could be used to scratch up the plastic sheet that protects the CCD.
I guess the rub is that a light sensor which determines how bright to make the LCD is probably indistinguishable from a CCD. If that is darkened then it would darken the screen potentially on machines with no CCD. Although you could test it by covering the spot briefly to see if the screen dims.
Could maybe have a tabbed UI for a link post or an “image post”. Both would essentially produce the same type of post but it’d possibly be less confusing?
In the case at hand I posted an article, no image. Then I later returned to add an image. If there were a separate tab for posting an image users who add an image late might select the tab for image and assume their article URL is not lost but rather just not displayed in the image tab.
What does ActivePub say about this though?
Not sure. If the limitation is borne out of Activity Pub then Lemmy’s only easy fix is to make the limitation clear and also warn users of data loss. Alternatively Lemmy could hide the image URL in the body in a spoiler or something on exported data to enable recipients to render the thumbnail. If it’s a Lemmy-driven limitation then of course another fix would be to add a separate field.
Lemmy already has a protective popup feature for other situations. If you start writing a msg and then try to navigate away from the form, Lemmy asks “are you sure you want to leave?” So the same mechanism could be used for “are you sure you want to delete your URL?” if you try to initiate an image upload.
I do, but it’s too big for my connection. It was produced by a French org iirc. I have images disabled so searching for it is hard for me. But if you search for these terms together you should get good hits: infographic pepsi unilever mars
“infographic” is key.
(edit) note as well there different versions of that image. If you see Kraft, that’s an older one because I think Mondelez bought Kraft. I have 3 versions but they’d all be at least 5 years old, so you might be able to find a more up to date one.
Yes, it really is a bug. Your explanation is indeed what I assumed was happening.
But of course it’s still a #LemmyBug. Data loss is a bug. There was no dialog saying “is it okay to erase your existing article link and replace it with an image URL due to a technical limitation”?
Arguably maybe confusing UI/UX,
Confusion is an understatement. There is no confusion. Users rightfully expect an image upload (which involves no URL) to be non-destructive. In fact providing an URL to an image instead of an upload was not even an option, thus implying that the URL was taken (used for the article). You cannot blame this on the user as it violates the principle of least astonishment.
It’s an implementation oversight, of course, because there is in fact no technical reason a post cannot have multiple pieces of information.
Is boycotting mars going to make even the slightest difference? Not in a million years.
Claiming boycotts don’t work is as good as claiming voting doesn’t work. It works in numbers.
Not only does mars probably own more companies than you even realise, including many of the alternatives you’re buying thinking you’re avoiding them,
Have a look at this infographic:
I have been boycotting everything in that graphic except “Associated British Foods plc” for the past 15 years because I pay attention and I have collected copious dirt on those companies. They are rotten to the core. I could probably find dirt on ABF if I searched for it specifically, but they are likely the lesser of evils and patronizing the lesser of evils is what ethical consumers do.
but even the products you do buy that are coming from a different company altogether, suffer from the exact same background problems (exploitation, oppression, unsustainability, lobbying).
This is the classic “they’re all evil” excuse for not doing your duty as an ethical consumer in favor of putting price and value above ethics in the interest of № 1. Corpations are not equals in the slightest. If you do a bit of research, you find that the smaller companies are much less frequently involved in wrongdoing. I keep a list of the scandals of these companies and it’s clear which ones do the lion’s share of harm.
There is good reason for the saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism”,
From that article:
“It is now 2018. People have “gone green”, eaten vegan, shopped “fair-trade”, and recycled for years now. Yet the atrocities that spurned the ethical consumption movement continue unabated. ”
Yikes. That author does not know what was abated because he only looks around at what he sees now. So because there are still problems, Olive Pape concludes “boycotting doesn’t work”, instead of realizing that boycotting works in numbers.
I boycott the worst of the worst with no expectation that my drop in the ocean makes a significant difference (just like my drop in the ocean vote makes no significant difference in an election). I do it to ensure that I am not part of the problem.
Stop being a part of the problem and favor the lesser of evils in the marketplace instead of taking the best deal that benefits you personally.
it’s to abolish capitalism because it requires and encourages all of the unethical practices you’re looking to avoid, in order to exist.
That kind of unhinged stance may be accurate, but we don’t live in an abolished capitalism world. Abolition of capitalism is a separate action entirely that’s not mutually exclusive to ethical consumption. You can dream about anarchy all you want but those dreams are actually not “going to make even the slightest difference… Not in a million years.” So in the meantime, please consume ethically.
I think the whole discussion is moot when the data is “anonymous”.
But suppose they had the OP’s name on file linked to the acct thus making the GDPR applicatable. There would still be a violation under GDPR Art.5 (minimization) and Art.25 (protection by design). But it is probably quite difficult to make a minimization case; lawyers have to work hard. Much stronger and effective to make an Art.17 claim, which indeed requires making the request.