628
S&P downgrades Oracle stock to BBB- (www.heise.de)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Only one notch above junk level.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Also wtf is with that website? "Data Tracking Consent required for free use"? I'm like 99% sure that's a wilful and deliberate GDPR violation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    No they let you opt out of sharing data with the hundreds 3rd parties they share your data with......by clicking reject next to each of their names on another page...

    It probably is legal and if you follow the money I'm willing to be there is some lobbying form who argued to get a provision like this snuck into GDPR during some backroom deal.

    Took me longer to do that than to read the article.

    Never has it been so clear to me that I was the product.

    Edit: IANAL, it seems to be legal under the GDPR because they offer an option to pay for the content. Idk about the preselected form to turn off individual advertising cookies, that still seems like it would still be an illegal dark pattern under the GDPR.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    It probably is legal and if you follow the money I’m willing to be there is some lobbying form who argued to get a provision like this snuck into GDPR during some backroom deal.

    No, it's not legal.

    Seems like you're making stuff up to match your broad views instead of checking or reading wherever. Which would be one thing if it's just for your own views, but you're unjustly propagating misinformation and system distrust.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/art-21-gdpr/

    At the latest at the time of the first communication with the data subject, the right referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be explicitly brought to the attention of the data subject and shall be presented clearly and separately from any other information.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/

    1The controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring that, by default, only personal data which are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed. 2That obligation applies to the amount of personal data collected, the extent of their processing, the period of their storage and their accessibility. 3In particular, such measures shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible without the individual’s intervention to an indefinite number of natural persons.

    More explanation what that means specifically on https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/

    Sorry if my response sounds harsh or unjustified. We're on a public platform after all where people share their views and understanding. It just pains me to read misinformation on such a good thing amongst less good things.

    Regarding the subscription or consent choice I've read multiple times that it was ruled illegal. I'm confused why is still practiced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The GDPR is flagrantly disregarded constantly. It really needs more enforcement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Just convince Ireland to enforce it... and thereby piss off the tech companies that are the basis for their economy because they pretend to be Irish. Or, convince the tech companies to move from their safe haven of Ireland to somewhere else in the EU where the GDPR is actually enforced.. something they'd gain nothing from doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    You do realize that your quotes prove the disclaimer is legal, right?

    They're stopping you before collecting data and making you choose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Taking this claim specifically:

    No they let you opt out of sharing data with the hundreds 3rd parties they share your data with…by clicking reject next to each of their names on another page…

    Hidden options are not "informed consent that is freely given".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Are you okay? I edited my comment to correct myself well before you got yourself worked up writing that.

    You need some serious help because it "Seems like you're making stuff up to match your broad views instead of checking or reading wherever", reading whatever being reading my actual comment lol

    EDIT: HEY ITS IN ALL CAPS CAN YOU SEE THIS EDIT?

    IT'S CALLED THE PAY-OR-CONSENT MODEL. Now that I'm sure it's impossible for you to have missed this I'll go back to normal text:

    As of 2026, enforcement trends suggest regulators are not saying the model itself is illegal. They are focusing on how Pay-or-Consent is implemented and whether users have a real choice to accept or reject tracking without paying

    Hmm seem's like a quick 5 second Google search is all it took instead of making stuff up to match my broad views instead of checking or reading whatever 🙄

    The Pay-or-Consent Model: Is it Legal in 2026?

    Sorry if my response sounds harsh or unjustified. We're on a public platform after all where people share their views and understanding. It just pains me to read misinformation on such a good thing I wrote amongst less good things written by people who didn't read all of what I wrote.

    EDIT 2: don't be a dick to people online, there's a difference between civil discourse and being a dick and you took the former and made it into the latter. Have a nice day Richard

    EDIT3: ohh I get it now:

    Regarding the subscription or consent choice I've read multiple times that it was ruled illegal. I'm confused why is still practiced.

    Cough

    No, it's not illegal.

    Seems like you're making stuff up to match your broad views instead of checking or reading wherever. Which would be one thing if it's just for your own views, but you're unjustly propagating misinformation and system distrust.

    Cough

    I'm sorry you think this should be illegal, but enforcement actions have shown that it's a legal gray area 🤷‍♂️

    Edit4: last one I promise and I'm gonna quote myself this time:

    It probably is legal and if you follow the money I'm willing to be there is some lobbying form who argued to get a provision like this snuck into GDPR during some backroom deal.

    It's not the same as a legislative backroom deal but I'm willing to bet backroom deals in the courts are why the GDPR provisions around a "Consent-Or-Pay" model are weaker now than what you would think would be legal under the GDPR.

    Look if I'm wrong can you at least not flame me again in your response? I'm actually on your side in this fight against advertisers/tech and would very much appreciate a civil discourse with you on this. We aren't gonna beat them if we are too busy beating each other up.

    Edit5: I lied, but this edit is to start civil discourse. I personally don't think the GDPR doesn't do enough case in point being this Consent-Or-Pay model. Regardless of how you personally feel about the GDPR there are provisions big tech lobbied to get in the GDPR, quiet erosion through enforcement actions, and now rollbacks while they are currently trying to gut it. The GDPR didn't do enough, we need something better, and it's Europe isn't enough we need more countries passing similar legislation with real teeth to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent