How else do you propose they get the word out without Facebook/Twitter etc. buttons?
I dont even have an account.
EDIT: It doesn't matter BTW if you're logged in. The cookie will still be set.
>And as for tracking cookies: every website has them to some extend. And every browser lets you pick the policy you prefer.
That's true, but I think it's just careless from the designers to leave out something like this on a website standing for a mission to get rid of "bad monopolies". It's obviously not a big thing, but still something which makes me scratch my head.
>But if you care some much.. Go help them out!
Yeah, I should do that since I'm bitching here.
And as for tracking cookies: every website has them to some extend. And every browser lets you pick the policy you prefer.
But if you care some much.. Go help them out!
This utterly misses the point. This is not about being logged into Facebook or not. I don't have a Facebook account I could be logged into, and they still try to track me (if they could, and wouldn't be shitlisted by at least 4 different filters, that is).
Facebook has no business with me. They can - and should have to - stay the fuck out of my life. The same goes for the other billions of people who don't have a Facebook account and hopefully won't get one.
And even if you are logged into Facebook, that still gives them no right to track you. Privacy is an inalienable right that you cannot give away by signing up for a Facebook account.
>And as for tracking cookies: every website has them to some extend.
That's not an argument, that's a lame excuse. Everyone needs to stop this shit. There's no justification for it. And no, targeted ads are not a justification. If your business model depends on infringing on the privacy of people, then your business modell is highly unethical and should be illegal.
Although, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I can't take them seriously because they decided to use the buttons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that privacy is not a worthwhile concern, but this movement seems to be about protecting the Internet from government abuse, not about privacy practices of private companies. Sure, it could be about both, but that would dilute the message and create a handicap, especially if it means having to avoid some of the primary methods of communication online.