all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 57 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Well, in the least consumer friendly fashion given this court.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user’s viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law’s definition of the word “consumer.”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Michael Salazar claims that his subscription to a 247Sports e-newsletter qualifies him as a “consumer.” But since he did not subscribe to “audio visual materials,” the district court held that he was not a “consumer” and dismissed the complaint.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Depending on how they rule, this could set us back about a couple of decades!!! :-(

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago*

    Interesting case. If the plaintiff wins, I suspect this will mean that sites with videos won't be able to use third-party analytics scripts (not just Meta pixel, but also things like Google Analytics), which would be a pretty large change for the industry.

    I'd love to see first-party tracking become more popular again. I self-host Plausible for my sites, but I've considered switching to Swetrix.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    That's a lot of words to say "this area needs reform"

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    ..... news laws for new mediums

  • source