It can't be the best. It's only one of many positive consequences. Not even a main justification, but only a point of defense for those so irrationally against the concept.
296 karma · joined March 11, 2024
Account abandoned due to Daddy Dang personally disliking my sarcasm or tone, not because guidelines were being broken.
Enforce consistently or not at all.
Apple made the concept 'cool' and benefited from their loyalist userbase, but if anything Apple copied Android. Even simple things like widgets and app folders Apple didn't get for like 10 years. Honestly, it's shocking.
You're being fooled by marketing.
Just because Brave calls it blocking, doesn't mean it is blocking.
Again, just do some god-damn research. Really, the bare minimum. It isn't news to anyone educated on this stuff that Apple has never* allowed proper ad blocking until recently in the EU.
But, believe whatever you want. I get being too scared to leave that ever so comfy RDF you found yourself in.
Well, I tried.
Take care.
You haven't been blocking them, because iOS with Safari didn't allow that.
Hiding, and blocking, are not the same thing. The former is far less secure than the latter.
As for blocking ads on iOS with Brave, well, it really doesn't work that well[0]. Why? Because iOS doesn't let you block ads, unless you are in the EU and on 17.4 or later.
You should exit the RDF and really do at least a bare minimum of research.
[0] https://community.brave.com/t/is-brave-even-blocking-ads-on-...
But aside from that recent exception, no one ever had anything except Safari on iOS, even if they thought otherwise.
I really don't mean to be insulting to US people here, but I really think this would be a huge difference in the populations between the US and other countries where the film was popular.
To be fair, that never really mattered.
> The extradition process did, but that is a question of custody.
This is the key point though. Plenty of western countries and especially AU/NZ are super buddy buddy with the US and happy to cooperate. Especially when they agree with the laws.
Most countries won't extradite someone for a (from their point of view) silly GDPR violation.
> In addition, there ARE numerous trade treaties that cover privacy, the right of countries to implement privacy regulation on international trade and specific protections that allow data exportation from the EU.
There is not a single treaty that covers allowing the EU the extraterritorial jjurusdiction they claim for the GDPR.
> This is false. The entity has to be based in the EU or be offering goods and services to people in the EU to have the GDPR apply.
You're right, my apologies - I should have added "offering goods and services to people in the EU" to be more specific, I had thought you would infer that from our discussion as I'd made that point previously, multiple times.
SO, here you go, a refined point: The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country offering goods and services to ANY EU citizen, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like.
That's what is ridicukous, that is what is entirely unlike any US law you've tried to compare it to. They have no ability to prosecute foreign violations and that's why, since teh GDPR came into effect, they never have.
> it is not the first of it's kind
It is. Specifically for declaring it's extraterritorial jurusdiction in the legislation, and because that can be aimed at anyone operating the 'wrong' type of website, not just officials or people commiting a specific crime.
> I've already provided several examples that disprove your statment.
No. You provided examples of laws that are not analogous, and I explained why that is.
> The "relevant details" are the qualifications that you keep making up but conviently still leave off when making your false claims.
I have not made a single false claim. Not one. You either have a misunderstanding of the GDPR, or you are going out of your way to defend and downplay the issues.
> you even doubled down on with a double "absolutely" when I first called you on it.
Yeah. I really suspect you are deliberatlly taking thing literally instead of just inferring what is obvious from the context so you can make these kinds of points, but instead of assuming bad faith I'll assume it's a misunderstanding.
> At this point, I suggest you put far more effort into verifying the accuracy of what you say or nobody will take anything you say seriously. I certainly don't anymore.
At this point, I suggest you do a little more research before jumping into these kinds of discussions. Sure, you caught me out with lacking a few qualifier, but my overall claim is absolutely correct.
No other western country has a law as far-reaching and widely applying as the GDPR, and no other western country has such a toothless law that has been so publicized that could never hope to be enforced.
> On iOS, Firefox has refused for years to implement an adblocker.
Blame Apple.
No, I'm not. I've been consistent from the start. Seriously, go look at my earlier replies.
All your examples are either laws that have treaties backing them, or don't apply to most people, or only apply in very specific circumstances.
None of them, absolutely NONE, are as far-reaching as the EU law. The EU claims it applies to ANY entity in ANY country so long as ANY EU citizen visits, and that entity collected data and targeted EU citizens in a way the EU didn't like.
That's what makes it different. That isn't moving the goal posts, that's pointing out very clearly that this apple very clearly isn't like your orange.
> Again you are saying things that have been already shown to not be true.
Only if you remove all relevant details that show everything I've said is absolutely correct.
Enough with the tribalism. There is no shame in admitting the EU made a far-reaching law, a first of its kind, that it has no hope of enforcing.
That's fair enough. But then it isn't really comparable, is it? If I host a site for fun in the US that targets as much data as I can about EU citizens and targets EU citizens but doesn't break any US laws, I would still be targeted, right?
Not to mention, bribery is likely illegal in all or at least most countries.
> If you are looking for broad scopes, copyright and espionage are both areas where the US asserts it's right to prosecute non-citizens for acts committed outside the country.
These still are not good examples. Every country has laws to prosecute spies, and copyright has numerous international treaties.
These areas still don't compare, at all, to the EU saying EU law applies to anyone in any country if a EU citizen visits it and the site collects their data and targets them in a way Europe doesn't like.
> With this understanding, the EU laws aren't really any different.
You say in the age of the internet a lot of countries would like to persecute people outside their borders for offenses that take place, to some extent, in their borders.
The thing is, the EU is the first to actually claim the power to do so. The other examples you or anyone else gives just don't map for one reason or another.
I didn't know that it is illegal to pay bribes overseas, and as someone who has traveled extensively and knows it is necessary sometimes, I'm curious how enforced that law actually is. Either way though, that example and the illegal sex one are both US law applying to US persons, not US law applying to non-US persons.
> In addition, one of my examples specifically allows the prosecution of non-us citizens for their actions abroad toward US citizens.
I apologize for not giving this specific point more attention. That law is interesting, and to quote the wiki page, "The law is quite specific in that it is intended to be extraterritorial in nature".
This seems to be the first law of its kind, as unlike the other examples you gave, it explicitly applies worldwide o any foreign officials.
In response to this law I would make two points. One, it hasn't been signed into law yet, and two, this is significantly more narrow in scope than the EU law which applies to anyone running a site that an EU citizen visits.
But it does. And if you have someone malicious trying to access the machine that way, why not lock them out on the first attempt?
I can see the advantage in simplifying things by not submitting blank passwords also, although I also think it isn't necessary.
> not exactly going to resuilt in success on the 1 millionth attempt.
Not, but 2 or 3 attempts should lock the account. I don't see an issue in treating a blank password submission as an attempt, but I guess denying that is easier than trying to educate users.