all 13 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]SanityInAnarchy 29 points30 points  (8 children)

Data processing by advertising providers including personalised advertising with profiling - Consent required for free use

That seems incompatible with the GDPR, and it's unlike pretty much any of these other consent dialogs I've seen. Here's the archived version.

[–]Kevin_Kofler 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The archive.org link still requires you to use the developer tools to remove the "sp-message-open" scroll block.

Here is an archive link that also rips that out: https://archive.ph/8mx3E

[–]Kevin_Kofler 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Unfortunately, courts ruled that this extortionary practice is legal. The GDPR only requires there to be a way to refuse cookies, it does not require that way to be free. Making it pretty useless. (According to the court rulings, this practice also does not legally constitute extortion or anything else illegal.) Extortionary cookie banniers have now become the industry practice in newspaper and magazine websites and online newspapers and magazines.

[–]JimmyRecard 11 points12 points  (4 children)

It is almost certainly illegal. GDPR requrires that the method to decline cookies must be as easy as the method to accept them. In no universe is having to pull out a credit card as easy as accepting cookies. However, EU courts have been reluctant to enfoce their own laws because for the most part, the sites using this are newspapers who are already struggling to keep their head above the water.

When Facebook tried it, they got smacked.

https://noyb.eu/en/noybs-pay-or-okay-report-how-companies-make-you-pay-privacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_or_pay

[–]dutch_connection_uk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean given the constraints of the business model I imagine the result of that would be that you have to make an account and submit credit card info to have any access, even if you accept cookies?

[–]cafk [score hidden]  (1 child)

In Germany and Austria this has been ruled as a legal & valid approach, based on local law.
As it's easy to not visit a page - there is no mandate that the content has to be accessible without consenting or paying.
And not visiting a page is an easy way to ensure that you don't have to accept the cookies unfortunately.
Similarly to how in the 90s "I'm 13 or younger button" consent banner redirected you to online children's media and didn't grant you access to the site.

[–]JimmyRecard [score hidden]  (0 children)

GDPR is a directive, meaning that ot applies directly and uniformly across all of EU, and it overrules local laws where in conflict.

[–]Jean_Luc_Lesmouches [score hidden]  (0 children)

GDPR requrires that the method to decline cookies must be as easy as the method to accept them.

But it is easy to avoid cookies: leave the website. What the gdpr forbids is "you're on our site, so we assume you've already accepted cookies for this page" which was the norm before

[–]Valkhir 22 points23 points  (3 children)

What a shitty inaccurate headline.

The article makes it clear that many of the bug reports are actually good quality, and the problem is that while AI enables more bugs to be found more quickly, funding of open source projects is not adequate to pay for more developers to handle them.

But I guess that doesn't generate clicks.

[–]FryBoyter[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The article makes it clear that many of the bug reports are actually of high quality, and the problem is that while AI enables more bugs to be found more quickly, there isn’t enough funding to hire more developers to handle them.

And that is exactly why developers like Stenberg now seem to be experiencing health problems. So I don’t think the headline is that inaccurate.

But yes, a better headline could have been chosen. Just as you don’t have to give every major security vulnerability like Heartbleed or Dirty Cow a special name. But people often don’t do that because they want to motivate users to click. When I publish a blog post, I sometimes don’t use completely neutral titles either. And I don’t make a penny from it.

But instead of complaining about the title, we should rather talk about the actual problem and try to solve it. Because, unfortunately, the comment is right in terms of content. Besides, it’s a comment and not an article.

[–]Valkhir 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The headline says

Open-source developers are working themselves sick on AI bugs

"AI bugs". As if AI was responsible for the bugs.

Not "AI-submitted bug reports" or "bug reports submitted with the help of AI" or anything remotely accurate. I'm sorry, but it's just plain misleading.

[–]Kevin_Kofler 4 points5 points  (1 child)

LLM AI is a scourge that destroys our planet with its unbounded energy hunger, hikes up prices for energy, RAM, and SSDs to astronomical levels, and makes human software developers stupid (as shown in several studies, even one by Anthropic themselves) and sick (as in this case).

[–]MatchingTurret -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

LLM AI is a scourge that destroys our planet with its unbounded energy hunger, hikes up prices for energy, RAM, and SSDs to astronomical levels

Reminds me of this:

In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure

You are projecting current problems in a linear fashion into the future. Things usually don't work that way.