It should be illegal to send the data, and illegal to accept it; burn both sides of that bridge.
If someone targets black people, you're on that list; if someone targets white people, you're also on that list!
What is lying in this case?
Where is the official government backed race classification list? If you look at the options they don't even know what they mean by "race". There are options asking if you are hispanic, which my definition of the meaning takes the Spanish speaker form, what about french or german speakers why are they discriminated against? And surely when they list colors they can't be talking about people. I don't know what white race is, or black as I have never seen people of either of those colors, unless and except if they mean for hair color, shades of brown and peach maybe then okay. Then they add some regions and a couple countries, by why are so many left out if thats what they mean by race? I would really prefer they gave a proper taxonomy here, until that happens they can not say that whatever you entered is lying or wrong.
They still don't define Native in a context with any other definitions of "race". Just because people want to "cancel" others for identity labels it doesn't make a race, which is what I am asking for. A proper and complete taxonomy, until then they can not prove one was lying -- only out spend in lawyer fees to make it not worth fighting. Which is outside the point of: what is lying.
There are statics somewhere that had some 20%+ of people who are looked at as "white" in the US actually have recent African ancestors as well. The Irish and Italians had to fight to be called "white" in the US because in the US being "white" meant being at the top of the class hierarchy. Which is all the race thing is, class hierarchy, and why no one can actually define a taxonomy for it because it's based on the arbitrary.
I'm saying they can not prove one is lying because there is no way to be formally classified. I pointed out one of many low hanging fruit ways an argument can be made from the links the other posted included. Being a more creative type, and having money with time to spare, one could find a way to argue whatever race they wanted. Even people with stricter bounds for themself are likely to find a trail of DNA and/or lineage for many of the cherry-picked classes on those forms.(especially in North America)
The civil discussion should now be about the punishment for that.
Regulation is required for handling people's data
But I also don’t think it’s perfect because usually drug users know they are buying drugs whereas with tracking pixels it’s being done secretly.
The only things in a contract that can be enforced must be stated plainly and clearly
Turns out there are o ly a few conditions that are actually necessary
update: Yeah, my bad. The point of this comment was to express my increasing cynicism at how we just keep seeing this kind of corporate behavior over and over again and how even when a tiny win is achieved on things like data collection, right to repair, ease for cancelling subscriptions, privacy, and so on and so on, they are so quickly over taken by new tactics or clawbacks/loopholes/non-enforcement of those laws. HN comments was probably the wrong place to vent and its too late to delete it.
We need to overturn CU if we want to be able to go back to a world where government serves people rather than multinational conglomerates.
It ruled that the federal government was wrong to restrict the speech rights of some groups while allowing other very similar groups to still retain their rights. One of the major examples of this was the media industry. A for-profit newspaper company could spend whatever amount of money it wanted to on political speech. An identical company in a different field could not. This, the court ruled, was unconstitutional.
It also did not grant corporations personhood, the other thing people like to state that it did.
Or we could stop looking at SCOTUS to fix legislation and ask the branch of government who's job it is to fix legislation, Congress.
In practice most of the foxes that promise to do so never actually will.
What's your proposal to solve this?
To me, money in politics is the red herring to keep you from looking at the real election reform that needs to happen, some combination of open primaries (to remove the effect of primaries going to more extreme candidates rather than centrists) and an alternative to first past the post elections to allow people to vote for who they like without worrying about throwing away their votes (there are many different systems to do this, they're all major improvements).
The money in politics is used by the parties to back their preferred candidates and the voters go along with it in the general elections because they don't want to waste their votes. The money helps them do the bad thing but it isn't the bad thing.
And also about the targeting of swing districts.