@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social
Post #4179652
2026-07-29 00:48 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@ferrix@mastodon.online 2026-07-29 01:23
@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social a term for the code that does something the user doesn't want, to support the financial interest of the vendor? "business burden" maybe? I don't know a real term for it I'm just thinking what it could be called
-
@rq@river.group.lt 2026-07-29 04:30
@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social, waaait, so, I will click a link to randomsponsor.com, and my browser will open randomsponsor.com, but randomsponsor.com will not know my IP address? How is that supposed to work even?
-
@afeinman@wandering.shop 2026-07-29 01:03
@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social "protection racket"?
-
@kentpitman@climatejustice.social 2026-07-29 01:16
@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social Ignoring for the moment your very reasonable observation about doubling complexity, why only protect the IP address from the sponsor, and not from other sites that have not at least been financially helpful? I must be missing something. This maybe relates (or maybe doesn't) to my ongoing irritation that privacy is the only US right that expires as you get older. You have it as a child and then they take it away from you, when plainly having it more broadly would be useful. Anyone who cares can see fuller rant at https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2021/05/children-of-information-era.html
-
@justin@toot.io 2026-07-29 03:20
@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social doesn't they come under enshittification?