Memes

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Plswrk@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

You can maneuver all you want, it is spyware. My hobby work is free. I don't track my users nor do I inundate them with ads. I believe that's unethical.

My work work is not available for free in any capacity whatsoever.

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

Good job you're not using an android phone so it doesn't matter!

It's his full time job, so his "work work " isn't free in any capacity either, you either pay with ad revenue or you pay with $20

parent

[–] Plswrk@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

He chose to go down that path. No one forced him. It's a brain dead argument mate.

Oh and btw, it is free in some capacity. You do not have to pay to use the free version. It's literally called the fucking free version.

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

The free version with ads that pay the developer that everyone's losing their minds over like they've never seen an advert before.

parent

[–] Plswrk@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Rightfully so, because it tracks you, collects and sells your data and inundates you with ads, which is literally every single fucking thing lemmy was built to get around.

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago

Or is it just a continuation of the usual Google platform. Being used on a Google phone with a Google account.

parent

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

@drekly @Plswrk, nobody needs to work for free, but creating incommings by spying the user to sell his data to third party isn't an acceptable way to gain money. There are a lot of methodes to gain money in the network, but with surveillance advertising spyware is the worse and with big risks for the user, which can't control where his personal data ends up.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Plswrk@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago

Exactly.

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

He just put ads in his app mate. He's not in the CIA

parent

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@drekly, simple ads are not a problem, if they are based on the content of the page and not based on user logs. Ads as is only can be somewhat annoying if there a lot in the page or they appears in the middle of a concert in YT, but no are a risk for the user privacy, no more than a commercial poster in the street or an ad in TV. As with all, bad the abuse. Years ago you saw 1-2 banners in a page, but novadays you must seek the webcontent between advertisings, banners, cookieadvices and popups

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Ok?

parent

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@drekly, no ok, blocking trackers is legit selfdefense, but also the abuse of ads, blocking these also is needed. Only it isn't a problem when a web shows an banner image or two, this can be tolerated, but not the abuse of ads currently and annoying popups, it is legit to block this crap.

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

What are you even talking about. Have you used sync?

parent

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@drekly, I don't use any third party client for social networks, less a proprietary paid one. It's like using a privacy browser, using Google as search engine. There are enough Spyware in the mobile which make trouble to eliminate, no need to install more.

But each one that makes him happy

parent

[–] drekly@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

So nothing you said is relevant to the topic of sync, which is why I'm confused.