The entire previous history of humanity we only had non-targeted ads in newspapers, on billboards, and on TV and radio, and everyone was ok with that. But suddenly, on the internet, it's somehow "not possible" to have advertising that isn't personalized or even dynamic at all. How so?
Whilst I broadly agree, ads have been targeted to location for a long time. Newspapers and TV would have geographical editions so you don't advertise say your theatre production to people who are too far away to care. With billboards or earlier fliers, you did the same.
Of course. Also TV ads would usually be shown during programs that the advertiser's target audience is most likely to be watching. Like ads for toys between cartoons. That's all fine, you can do the same on the internet without harming anyone's privacy. As an advertising network, you can receive the topic information from the websites themselves as part of them signing up, and users' approximate location can be derived from the IP address.
But instead, they're all hellbent on doing some form of personalization (via tracking) and attribution, and act as if the world would end if all technical means to do that, like third-party cookies, would cease to exist.
Even personalised advertising can be done without sharing personal data with 100+ third parties. For example, ask the user to fill out a survey about their interests, and then serve them more personalised ads based on their survey answers, all without sharing personal data with third parties.
That would be a disposal and requires an amendment to the law (specifically the British Museum Act 1963, which I've quoted in a reply to another comment in this thread).
"Everyone involved understands" is not sufficient guarantee to either the Museum or the Greek authorities that the law has been changed. It either must be a temporary loan - and ideally with artefacts of similar value being lent the other way to make clear that the loan is "de-risked" - or it can't happen.
I can't see that change in law happening any time soon.
It’s probably excluded because TFL don’t classify it as an Underground line. Similarly, hovering over the DLR will produce a tooltip but the line is excluded.
Not proven in Scotland and not guilty in almost every other country are the equivalent. Innocent is the outlier verdict in Scotland that the rest of the world doesn't have.
That's also a description of the "not guilty" verdict. Guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and "not guilty" is those circumstances that are not Guilty.
>Let's not criticise Japanese law without acknowledging that US law is also fucked up.
This doesn’t need done at all. This is just whataboutism. This story does not involve the USA and the discussion about other countries does not need to be derailed every time with discussion about and comparison to the USA.
That’s just not true. The violent crime rate in Russia is many times that of any Western European country, and their intentional homicide rate is slightly higher than America’s. In terms of murder rate Belarus sits much closer to Western Europe than America, but it still sits above Western Europe.
My observation has been that the comments on high engagement TikTok posts are generally quite pleasant, whereas the comments on high engagement Instagram posts feel like a KKK meeting.
Youtube comments used to be known as a cesspool, but lately I'm mostly avoiding them for their unbearable positivity and uncritical praise of the video. I can see how that's bad on conspiracy or racist videos though.
I wonder if this is because the creators routinely prune negative comments of them. Or perhaps it is because Youtube severely down ranks comments with dislikes.
Fascinating, I'd guess this to be the result of a filter bubble? i.e. it would only show you things you agree with. That might not be optimal though (at least in terms of harvesting human attention at all costs), I always heard that outrage drives engagement better?
