▲ 657 ▼ I traced $2 billion in nonprofit grants and 45 states of lobbying records to figure out who's behind the age verification bills (www.reddit.com) submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ikidd@lemmy.world to c/linux@programming.dev 101 comments fedilink hide all child comments God, I hate posting a Reddit comment, but this is huge. Every claim is sourced (I have not verified personally). Edit: Well, Reddit does what reddit does, it's been removed. Here is a github link: https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/985257 Comments
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 months ago (1 child) App stores and anything else that makes a call to that API. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 5 months ago (1 child) Your browser would have to allow that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (1 child) You mean the browsers all based on code from Google and Apple, who also want that info, and will be pressured to use that API to "protect the children" from adult websites? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -8 points 5 months ago (1 child) No, I do not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) That question was rhetorical. Apple and Google account for 95% of the browser market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 5 months ago (1 child) Your browser would have to allow that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (1 child) You mean the browsers all based on code from Google and Apple, who also want that info, and will be pressured to use that API to "protect the children" from adult websites? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -8 points 5 months ago (1 child) No, I do not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) That question was rhetorical. Apple and Google account for 95% of the browser market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (1 child) You mean the browsers all based on code from Google and Apple, who also want that info, and will be pressured to use that API to "protect the children" from adult websites? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -8 points 5 months ago (1 child) No, I do not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) That question was rhetorical. Apple and Google account for 95% of the browser market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -8 points 5 months ago (1 child) No, I do not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) That question was rhetorical. Apple and Google account for 95% of the browser market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) That question was rhetorical. Apple and Google account for 95% of the browser market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (2 children) I know what you meant, but I guess you've never heard of this little thing called a fork. Or Firefox. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) You honestly believe that the general public is going to suddenly rush to chromium or Firefox forks? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Didn't say they would. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 child) Then why would they be relevant to a discussion about legislation that affects the general public? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -6 points 5 months ago (1 child) No one said anything about "general public". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) We are talking about legislation. Unless it's very specifically targeted legislation, the conversation always is about the general public. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 child) It isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago lol You quite literally do not know what you're talking about and it's hilarious. Hilariously pathetic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hi, I am here to tell you that it is not particularly trivial to make the kind of changes required to make the websites keep working while also preventing stuff similar to JS fingerprinting. Some extensions do a decent job in certain cases, but the only ones that completely fix the problem are the ones that simply turn off JS. I checked out what Librewolf's changes do, using amiunique.org and in some tests it even ends up increasing the uniqueness. You will essentially require identifying different parts of the JS engine that expose said vulnerabilities and then creating mitigations for each of them, with either the "blend in" or "randomise" strategy and will also require to make sure they are not detected over any domain (due to partial overlap of either change). This kind of change for a single person will require properly understanding the JS engine codebase and then making and maintaining all required patches over the course of the fork as the main project goes forward. This is pretty much a full time job. Even if multiple people are working on it, one would still require a good understanding of the codebase. I suggest recruiting one of the retired/laid-off Firefox engineers, if you have the funds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) ...why are we talking about JS and fingerprinting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting and person identification, one that some analyst on their inside possibly considered a useful data point. And while this particular API might be an easy one to target, for removal as a patch, it might end up being part of a JS framework that many websites use and will break in case the return value is not available. So if people require sites to work, this will become just another feature, requiring similar mitigations to other JS features I mentioned, that will need to be handled in a way that it increases the anonymity of the user, lest the user be subjected to harassment. By "harassment", I mean the actual inescapable kind, not just random internet trolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) The application of age indication is just going to be another metric that these companies use for fingerprinting As I said, there's nothing to suggest they would receive such an indicator, as far as I'm aware. The indicator is only required between the app store and the OS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) Facebook has "apps", no? Last I checked, it had stuff like FarmVille, FrontierVille, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 child) We weren't talking about apps, we were talking about Facebook like buttons on websites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Causation: FaceBook website has apps FaceBook website is an App store FaceBook website requires access to Age API Firefox needs to passthrough Age API to Facebook's domain All embedded FaceBook buttons now get to see your OS's age permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) That's not an app store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Does the Court ask you? Does the legislature? Does Meta come to ask what you call an "App Store"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The legislation clearly states what is and is not an app store. I'd recommend you mull it over. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 point 5 months ago (3) APP.—The term “app” means a software application or electronic service that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. (4) APP STORE.—The term “app store” means a publicly available website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes and facilitates the download of an app from a third-party developer by a user of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. 100% sure they all come in the category of an "App Store" when convenient for the lobbyist. permalink fedilink source parent