• BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    The way the guy was flexing about being an “expert”, while it may or may not be true (I haven’t independently verified his credentials), is extremely offputting. Refusing to engage with hecklers is a better policy than flexing with your education, credentials, and experience.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is it offputting to say “listen to me because I’m an expert, here’s my credentials”? Everybody’s so fast to claim “fake news” nowadays that demonstrating your credibility has become a requirement.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        The person he was responding to was asking for some specific clarification. Instead of offering it, he appealed to his own authority, essentially listing his credentials in a pompous way and then saying “You don’t need to understand. I’m the expert, I’ll understand it for you.”

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          He’s answering to a person saying “IANAL” asking whether this really is illegal with “I am an expert on this particular law, helped to write its replacement and already had confirmation from DG Just (EU Commission) that the law applies in the way I have stated”. Seems perfectly apropos to me.

          • krellor@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But he didn’t cite policy, law, or legal analysis. I work as a technology policy writer/interpreter in the US so I can’t address the EU issues. But I’ve never responded to someone who asked for the basis of my conclusion by listing my credentials. When I publish a policy position paper, I cite chapter and verse all relevant laws, policies, statutes, and explanation for interpretation. I’ve written entire pages offering justification for the interpretation of a single sentence a particular way. He didn’t do that. He might be right, but he didn’t justify it in any meaningful way.

              • uis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                IANAL, but since without adblocker site works, but with adblocker youtube breaks it, which means this information somehow is collected, which probably is violation of EU law no matter how exactly Google gets this information. And Google can’t say “we accidentaly are making totally different thing, that just so happens to break adblock” because they just wrote in text that they detected adblock.

                • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah as others have stated, Google could deduce your usage of an adblock through any myriad ways. But you’ve got a point - it’s one to thing to throw a popup saying “Our ads couldn’t play for some reason, we won’t show you videos until they do,” and another to say “We know you are using an adblocker, we won’t show you videos until you disable it.”

    • pirate526@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. He took a massive ego trip early on and immediately came across as someone I don’t particularly want to side with.

      I’m a web developer and fundamentally disagree with his take on what JavaScript can do on the client side. I see what he’s getting at but I think he’s wrong. JavaScript can certainly detect access to resources (ads in this instance) without violating any enforceable policies. Half the internet does error handling with JS for things that won’t load - how can this be construed as violating eprivacy? Nonsense.

      That being said I’d love for this feature to go away and would be happy to see YouTube and Google go pound sand… but this feels like a stretch. It was inevitable enshittification imo.