#GDPR: Personal data

[norrkatt]

Tumblr’s Core Product Strategy

Here at Tumblr, we’ve been working hard on reorganizing how we work in a bid to gain more users. A larger user base means a more sustainable company, and means we get to stick around and do this thing with you all a bit longer. What follows is the strategy we're using to accomplish the goal of user growth. The @labs group has published a bit already, but this is bigger. We’re publishing it publicly for the first time, in an effort to work more transparently with all of you in the Tumblr community. This strategy provides guidance amid limited resources, allowing our teams to focus on specific key areas to ensure Tumblr’s future.

The Diagnosis

In order for Tumblr to grow, we need to fix the core experience that makes Tumblr a useful place for users. The underlying problem is that Tumblr is not easy to use. Historically, we have expected users to curate their feeds and lean into curating their experience. But this expectation introduces friction to the user experience and only serves a small portion of our audience. 

Tumblr’s competitive advantage lies in its unique content and vibrant communities. As the forerunner of internet culture, Tumblr encompasses a wide range of interests, such as entertainment, art, gaming, fandom, fashion, and music. People come to Tumblr to immerse themselves in this culture, making it essential for us to ensure a seamless connection between people and content. 

To guarantee Tumblr’s continued success, we’ve got to prioritize fostering that seamless connection between people and content. This involves attracting and retaining new users and creators, nurturing their growth, and encouraging frequent engagement with the platform.

Our Guiding Principles

To enhance Tumblr’s usability, we must address these core guiding principles.

Expand the ways new users can discover and sign up for Tumblr.

Provide high-quality content with every app launch.

Facilitate easier user participation in conversations.

Retain and grow our creator base.

Create patterns that encourage users to keep returning to Tumblr.

Improve the platform’s performance, stability, and quality.

Below is a deep dive into each of these principles.

Principle 1: Expand the ways new users can discover and sign up for Tumblr.

Tumblr has a “top of the funnel” issue in converting non-users into engaged logged-in users. We also have not invested in industry standard SEO practices to ensure a robust top of the funnel. The referral traffic that we do get from external sources is dispersed across different pages with inconsistent user experiences, which results in a missed opportunity to convert these users into regular Tumblr users. For example, users from search engines often land on pages within the blog network and blog view—where there isn’t much of a reason to sign up. 

We need to experiment with logged-out tumblr.com to ensure we are capturing the highest potential conversion rate for visitors into sign-ups and log-ins. We might want to explore showing the potential future user the full breadth of content that Tumblr has to offer on our logged-out pages. We want people to be able to easily understand the potential behind Tumblr without having to navigate multiple tabs and pages to figure it out. Our current logged-out explore page does very little to help users understand “what is Tumblr.” which is a missed opportunity to get people excited about joining the site.

Actions & Next Steps

Improving Tumblr’s search engine optimization (SEO) practices to be in line with industry standards.

Experiment with logged out tumblr.com to achieve the highest conversion rate for sign-ups and log-ins, explore ways for visitors to “get” Tumblr and entice them to sign up.

Principle 2: Provide high-quality content with every app launch.

We need to ensure the highest quality user experience by presenting fresh and relevant content tailored to the user’s diverse interests during each session. If the user has a bad content experience, the fault lies with the product.

The default position should always be that the user does not know how to navigate the application. Additionally, we need to ensure that when people search for content related to their interests, it is easily accessible without any confusing limitations or unexpected roadblocks in their journey.

Being a 15-year-old brand is tough because the brand carries the baggage of a person’s preconceived impressions of Tumblr. On average, a user only sees 25 posts per session, so the first 25 posts have to convey the value of Tumblr: it is a vibrant community with lots of untapped potential. We never want to leave the user believing that Tumblr is a place that is stale and not relevant. 

Actions & Next Steps

Deliver great content each time the app is opened.

Make it easier for users to understand where the vibrant communities on Tumblr are. 

Improve our algorithmic ranking capabilities across all feeds. 

Principle 3: Facilitate easier user participation in conversations.

Part of Tumblr’s charm lies in its capacity to showcase the evolution of conversations and the clever remarks found within reblog chains and replies. Engaging in these discussions should be enjoyable and effortless.

Unfortunately, the current way that conversations work on Tumblr across replies and reblogs is confusing for new users. The limitations around engaging with individual reblogs, replies only applying to the original post, and the inability to easily follow threaded conversations make it difficult for users to join the conversation.

Actions & Next Steps

Address the confusion within replies and reblogs.

Improve the conversational posting features around replies and reblogs. 

Allow engagements on individual replies and reblogs.

Make it easier for users to follow the various conversation paths within a reblog thread. 

Remove clutter in the conversation by collapsing reblog threads. 

Explore the feasibility of removing duplicate reblogs within a user’s Following feed. 

Principle 4: Retain and grow our creator base.

Creators are essential to the Tumblr community. However, we haven’t always had a consistent and coordinated effort around retaining, nurturing, and growing our creator base.  

Being a new creator on Tumblr can be intimidating, with a high likelihood of leaving or disappointment upon sharing creations without receiving engagement or feedback. We need to ensure that we have the expected creator tools and foster the rewarding feedback loops that keep creators around and enable them to thrive.

The lack of feedback stems from the outdated decision to only show content from followed blogs on the main dashboard feed (“Following”), perpetuating a cycle where popular blogs continue to gain more visibility at the expense of helping new creators. To address this, we need to prioritize supporting and nurturing the growth of new creators on the platform.

It is also imperative that creators, like everyone on Tumblr, feel safe and in control of their experience. Whether it be an ask from the community or engagement on a post, being successful on Tumblr should never feel like a punishing experience.

Actions & Next Steps

Get creators’ new content in front of people who are interested in it. 

Improve the feedback loop for creators, incentivizing them to continue posting.

Build mechanisms to protect creators from being spammed by notifications when they go viral.

Expand ways to co-create content, such as by adding the capability to embed Tumblr links in posts.

Principle 5: Create patterns that encourage users to keep returning to Tumblr.

Push notifications and emails are essential tools to increase user engagement, improve user retention, and facilitate content discovery. Our strategy of reaching out to you, the user, should be well-coordinated across product, commercial, and marketing teams.

Our messaging strategy needs to be personalized and adapt to a user’s shifting interests. Our messages should keep users in the know on the latest activity in their community, as well as keeping Tumblr top of mind as the place to go for witty takes and remixes of the latest shows and real-life events.  

Most importantly, our messages should be thoughtful and should never come across as spammy.  

Actions & Next Steps

Conduct an audit of our messaging strategy.

Address the issue of notifications getting too noisy; throttle, collapse or mute notifications where necessary.  

Identify opportunities for personalization within our email messages. 

Test what the right daily push notification limit is. 

Send emails when a user has push notifications switched off.

Principle 6: Performance, stability and quality.

The stability and performance of our mobile apps have declined. There is a large backlog of production issues, with more bugs created than resolved over the last 300 days. If this continues, roughly one new unresolved production issue will be created every two days. Apps and backend systems that work well and don't crash are the foundation of a great Tumblr experience. Improving performance, stability, and quality will help us achieve sustainable operations for Tumblr.

Improve performance and stability: deliver crash-free, responsive, and fast-loading apps on Android, iOS, and web.

Improve quality: deliver the highest quality Tumblr experience to our users. 

Move faster: provide APIs and services to unblock core product initiatives and launch new features coming out of Labs.

Conclusion

Our mission has always been to empower the world’s creators. We are wholly committed to ensuring Tumblr evolves in a way that supports our current users while improving areas that attract new creators, artists, and users. You deserve a digital home that works for you. You deserve the best tools and features to connect with your communities on a platform that prioritizes the easy discoverability of high-quality content. This is an invigorating time for Tumblr, and we couldn’t be more excited about our current strategy.

[diagnozabam]

GDPR la extrem: Comisia Europeană, amendată pentru încălcarea propriilor reguli

Într-un exemplu care ilustrează rigurozitatea aplicării Regulamentului General European privind Protecția Datelor (GDPR), Curtea Europeană de Justiție a sancționat Comisia Europeană pentru nerespectarea normelor emise chiar de această instituție. Ancheta a dezvăluit că funcționarii Comisiei au transferat datele personale ale unui cetățean european în Statele Unite fără a respecta prevederile…

[trainsinanime]

I've seen a number of people worried and concerned about this language on Ao3s current "agree to these terms of service" page. The short version is:

Don't worry. This isn't anything bad. Checking that box just means you forgive them for being US American.

Long version: This text makes perfect sense if you're familiar with the issues around GDPR and in particular the uncertainty about Privacy Shield and SCCs after Schrems II. But I suspect most people aren't, so let's get into it, with the caveat that this is a Eurocentric (and in particular EU centric) view of this.

The basic outline is that Europeans in the EU have a right to privacy under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an EU directive (let's simplify things and call it an EU law) that regulates how various entities, including companies and the government, may acquire, store and process data about you.

The list of what counts as data about you is enormous. It includes things like your name and birthday, but also your email address, your computers IP address, user names, whatever. If an advertiser could want it, it's on the list.

The general rule is that they can't, unless you give explicit permission, or it's for one of a number of enumerated reasons (not all of which are as clear as would be desirable, but that's another topic). You have a right to request a copy of the data, you have a right to force them to delete their data and so on. It's not quite on the level of constitutional rights, but it is a pretty big deal.

In contrast, the US, home of most of the world's internet companies, has no such right at a federal level. If someone has your data, it is fundamentally theirs. American police, FBI, CIA and so on also have far more rights to request your data than the ones in Europe.

So how can an American website provide services to persons in the EU? Well… Honestly, there's an argument to be made that they can't.

US websites can promise in their terms and conditions that they will keep your data as safe as a European site would. In fact, they have to, unless they start specifically excluding Europeans. The EU even provides Standard Contract Clauses (SCCs) that they can use for this.

However, e.g. Facebook's T&Cs can't bind the US government. Facebook can't promise that it'll keep your data as secure as it is in the EU even if they wanted to (which they absolutely don't), because the US government can get to it easily, and EU citizens can't even sue the US government over it.

Despite the importance that US companies have in Europe, this is not a theoretical concern at all. There have been two successive international agreements between the US and the EU about this, and both were struck down by the EU court as being in violation of EU law, in the Schrems I and Schrems II decisions (named after Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist who sued in both cases).

A third international agreement is currently being prepared, and in the meantime the previous agreement (known as "Privacy Shield") remains tentatively in place. The problem is that the US government does not want to offer EU citizens equivalent protection as they have under EU law; they don't even want to offer US citizens these protections. They just love spying on foreigners too much. The previous agreements tried to hide that under flowery language, but couldn't actually solve it. It's unclear and in my opinion unlikely that they'll manage to get a version that survives judicial review this time. Max Schrems is waiting.

So what is a site like Ao3 to do? They're arguably not part of the problem, Max Schrems keeps suing Meta, not the OTW, but they are subject to the rules because they process stuff like your email address.

Their solution is this checkbox. You agree that they can process your data even though they're in the US, and they can't guarantee you that the US government won't spy on you in ways that would be illegal for the government of e.g. Belgium. Is that legal under EU law? …probably as legal as fan fiction in general, I suppose, which is to say let's hope nobody sues to try and find out.

But what's important is that nothing changed, just the language. Ao3 has always stored your user name and email address on servers in the US, subject to whatever the FBI, CIA, NSA and FRA may want to do it. They're just making it more clear now.

[techdriveplay]

How to Manage Your Digital Footprint

In today’s interconnected world, our online presence is more significant than ever. Every click, share, and post contributes to our digital footprint, shaping how we are perceived both personally and professionally. This comprehensive guide on how to manage your digital footprint aims to equip you with the knowledge and tools necessary to take control of your online identity, ensuring it reflects…

[akwyz]

Carrefour's AI Revolution: Enhancing Shopping Experience with OpenAI's GPT-4

Just had a conversation with my shopping cart. 🛒✨ It knew my budget, food preferences, & even suggested recipes! Thanks to #AI, #grocery shopping is no longer a chore, it's a chat. Are we in 2023 or 3023? 🚀 #Carrefour #OpenAI #FutureOfRetail

Carrefour, the French multinational retail corporation, has taken a significant step in advancing its digital strategy by deploying three novel tech solutions, all powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4 technology. These innovations include an advice-giving chatbot named ‘Hopla’, interactive product descriptions, and support for purchasing procedures. A Personal Shopping Assistant: Meet Hopla As of 8 June,…

[mschelle]

Well hot damn if it wasn't enough for this loser to throw a public tantrum now he's going out of his way to follow predestrogen on other platforms and start harassing her there!!! You can't hide these Matt I got the screenshots lol!!!!!!

HE'S BLATANTLY LYING OUT OF HIS ASS!! SPREAD IT AROUND!! And also since she seems to be from Ireland even though I don't even know shit about eu laws from what little I do know this is a big violation of GDPR and should be reported as such!! https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my-personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en

[thelawandmore]

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business 

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business

Data privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world. Here are nine recent developments that changed the data privacy landscape and what they mean for businesses and consumers.  1. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018, creating a unified data protection framework across the EU and giving individuals more control over their personal data. The EU General…

[taikeero-lecoredier]

Chat Control in a nutshell (please reblog this, US people)

Find out more about Chat Control here TAKE ACTION HERE ! OR HERE Calling is much more efficient ! The latter link will redirect you to the official websites of your respective reps. Under the "read more", you will find what you need to say/write when contacting your reps. You will also find an alternate format of this comic,and I give explicit permission for people to translate it and spread it anywhere for awareness. Credit really not needed, I don't care about that rn Even if this is a EU proposal, I am urging Americans to also share this, since it goes hand in hand with KOSA. DON'T FORGET TO JOIN OUR DISCORD SERVER AGAINST CHAT CONTROL ! https://discord.com/invite/e7FYdYnMkS

(Latest update on Chat Control was the 12 september 2024) This is a little long, so feel free to shorten it as you wish : Subject line: "2022/0155(COD) Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed introduction of "Chat Control" This measure poses a serious threat to the privacy and fundamental rights of all EU citizens and stands in stark contradiction to the core principles that the European Union seeks to uphold. The proposed Chat Control contravenes Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantee the right to respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The indiscriminate surveillance of private messages without specific suspicion or cause directly violates these fundamental rights. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets out stringent rules for the processing of personal data. The proposed indiscriminate surveillance and scanning of private messages before end-to-end encryption is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation enshrined in the GDPR. Specifically, Articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR, which govern the lawfulness and principles of data processing, would be violated by the introduction of such measures. The implementation of Client-Side Scanning (CSS) on devices means that all messages and files are scanned on the user's device before being encrypted and sent. This effectively nullifies the protection offered by end-to-end encryption and opens the door to misuse and additional security vulnerabilities. Moreover, the technical capability to scan such content could be exploited by malicious actors to circumvent or manipulate surveillance mechanisms. Such far-reaching surveillance measures not only endanger privacy but also freedom of expression. The knowledge that their private messages are being scanned and monitored could significantly restrict individuals' willingness to freely express themselves. Additionally, trust in digital communication platforms would be severely undermined. I urge you to take a strong stance against this disproportionate and unlawful measure. The privacy and digital rights of EU citizens must be safeguarded. It is imperative that we protect our fundamental rights and ensure transparency in the decision-making processes of our leaders. For more detailed information on the proposal and its implications, please refer to the following resource: Link to Netzpolitik article. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/rat-soll-chatkontrolle-durchwinken-werde-jetzt-aktiv/ Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Sincerely, [Name] Art. 10 GG , Art. 8 & 11 EU Charta , Art. 8 EMRK (Alternate comic here V)

[domidextrus]

To give you some hope in this seemingly uncertain year, we just had a historical enby win in Europe!

The European Court of Justice has officially ruled that it is unlawful for a railway company to collect a customer's gender marker. This is because this personal data is unnecessary when purchasing a train ticket and could lead to discrimination on the basis of someone's gender identity.

The impact of this case goes far beyond train travel. From now on, all public and private companies that are bound by the GDPR legislation must follow this ruling and stop collecting this data if it is not strictly necessary. This will have a positive impact on the lives of non-binary people who are often forced to choose between two options (e.g. Mr. or Mrs.) that do not match their identity.

The ruling concerns a case in France in which 64 non-binary people challenged the National Company of the French Railways (SNCF)'s practice of forcing train passengers to choose between 'Mr' or 'Mrs' on their train tickets, with the train company not offering a third option. TGEU and ILGA-Europe supported Association Mousse and its lawyers in the case.

[fwoosheye]

OI! FACEBOOK USERS WHO HATE AI! GUESS WHAT!

META IS GOING TO FEED YOUR POSTS AND IMAGES AND COMMENTS TO THEIR AI!

From what I understand this is already being implemented for Americans, with no opt-out option, but there is apparently a form you can fill in to ask them to remove all your data.

For us in the EU, we can fill in a form to object to our stuff being added, but there are some things we need to pay extra attention to:

Meta has to approve of the objection — meaning that sending it in doesn't necessarily mean it will go through

In the country they want the ISO country code (e.g. SE for Sweden). I read that someone got it to work by writing Italy rather than Italia, but I am unsure if that works for all countries

EVEN IF YOUR OBJECTION IS APPROVED, YOUR STUFF CAN BE ADDED TO META AI IF SOMEONE WHO HASN'T OBJECTED TO META AI SHARE YOUR POST/IMAGES TO THEIR PAGE

A verification code will be sent to your email, so make sure you write in the email you use for fb correctly and be prepared to check the spamfolder

It's supposed to be implemented the 26th of June here, so do it asap

MAKE SURE TO MENTION GDPR!!!

I don't know what the situation about this is for people outside EU, so if you happens to know please add to this with whatever information you have!

Check the notifications on your fb account and you should find one from Meta with all the relevant links there!

I will also copy what I wrote in the form into the comments on this post (for easy copying) in case someone doesn't have the spoons to write their own reasons. It's far from perfect but it's better than not doing it at all.

Also I don't know if this includes Instagram, I couldn't see anything about it over there, but I imagine it does or will soon enough, so keep your eyes open for that too.

(Also, hate to be that person, but please reblog to spread awareness!)

[mariacallous]

Big Tech may have found their response to the European Union’s (EU) digital competition and content moderation policies: tariffs. “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in his announcement eliminating the company’s fact-checkers. President Trump, of course, has described himself as a “Tariff Man.”

Europe’s “ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship” were number one on the Zuckerberg target list. The only way Meta “can push back on this global trend is with the support of the U.S. government,” he explained, adding, “that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship.”

The semantic conflation of curatorial responsibility and censorship, a familiar domestic political gambit, has been internationalized and weaponized to attack the expectation—at least in Europe—that media platforms like Meta should practice responsible content curation.

Tariffs and truth

Thanks to intensive lobbying by Big Tech, the U.S. Congress has done little to provide meaningful oversight of the digital platform companies. The tech CEOs invited to the Trump inaugural lead companies that dominate the free flow of information, invade personal privacy, and pervert the competitive marketplace. Yet, these companies have been able to avoid meaningful domestic oversight for their entire existence.

The void created by American inaction has been filled by EU regulations despite the companies’ strong objections. Combining claims of censorship with Donald Trump’s affinity for tariffs just might be the leverage Big Tech seeks against the EU’s digital policies. Mark Zuckerberg appears ready to spearhead the effort.

By framing the EU’s actions as “institutionalizing censorship,” and asserting that the EU is “going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” Zuckerberg presses all the right MAGA buttons to provide a rationale for the Trump administration to fight the EU’s decisions. It is not a surprising strategy, and is made even more significant because it reverses previous corporate policy.

After the January 6 insurrection, Facebook along with Twitter suspended Donald Trump’s account. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing,” President Trump said at the time. Accusing Zuckerberg of plotting against him, Trump wrote in a 2024 book that the Meta CEO could, “spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Meta’s 2025 policy switch, however, has been met with the new president’s approval. Asked if Meta was responding to his earlier threats, Trump replied, “probably,” adding, “I think they have come a long way.” 

What’s the fuss over EU regulation?

The EU has enacted multiple laws to try and provide oversight of the previously unsupervised activities of Big Tech. It started in 2018 with privacy protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In 2022, the European Parliament passed the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to deal with the lack of digital marketplace competition. Twenty-twenty-four saw the AI Act (AI) establishing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence.

All these actions were aggressively fought by Big Tech. But for social media companies, the EU legislation that is the biggest challenge is the 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA). This law covers a handful of online platform companies deemed pervasive enough to be “gatekeepers” with a new style of regulation.

Instead of the traditional form of regulatory oversight that micromanages how a company operates, the DSA establishes expectations for what the company will deliver.  These expectations include content moderation and transparency. The law does not specify how moderation is achieved, but that it is being done in a meaningful and significant manner. Far from regulatory micromanagement of corporate operations, the companies are required to self-certify that they are delivering on the law’s expectations. If they are not, then there are penalties.

While Meta has eliminated fact-checking in the U.S., it has not done so in the EU. It is hard to certify content moderation, as the DSA requires, when you’ve fired all the moderators. This has created a conflict between the company’s U.S. practices and EU requirements. Even if it represents a legal problem, the decision is good for the company since social media platforms, such as Meta, thrive on engagement-stimulating, unedited rage, and bottom-line profits should increase with the elimination of fact-checking jobs.

Elon Musk and NATO—a signal?

Comments by Vice President Vance during the 2024 campaign hinted at leveraging the power of the federal government to deal with DSA requirements. Asked in an interview whether American support of NATO could hinge on whether the EU regulated Elon Musk’s social media platform X, Vance responded affirmatively.

“So, what America should be saying is, if NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance, why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Vance said. “It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”

These comments reveal a willingness to link trade and security to digital regulation. A tariff-based response to EU policies seems plausible under such a mindset.

A regulation vs. trade crusade?

On his first day as President of the United States, Donald Trump said “tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” A few days later, he threatened the EU with tariffs unless they bought more U.S. oil and gas.  

The U.S. has a trade deficit with the EU when it comes to goods such as oil and gas but a favorable trade balance when it comes to services such as those of Big Tech. The challenge, therefore, is not to use tariffs to force the EU to buy more, but, as Zuckerberg told the Joe Rogan podcast, “the United States should be defending its companies.”

Caught between a U.S. Congress that has done little to protect against misinformation and hate, and the world’s second largest trading block which has tried to combine freedom of expression and the expectation of curatorial responsibility, Big Tech faces a dilemma. The combined arguments of censorship and defending American companies is a powerful elixir served to an audience of one man.

Wall Street analysts hail Mark Zuckerberg as “the best CEO of our time” for his ability to align Meta’s self-interest with prevailing political winds. The emerging narrative of “censorship vs. trade” is a powerful, if calculated, political move. Threatening tariffs in response to EU digital regulations could be a strategy that appeals to “Tariff Man.”

Ironically, this push comes at a time when artificial intelligence offers low-cost tools for fact-checking and content moderation. Yet, the political calculus behind the “censorship vs. trade” strategy may overshadow technical realities.

Mark Zuckerberg’s maneuvering is a shrewd effort to redefine the debate about European digital regulation. The question now becomes whether President Trump will add relaxed enforcement of the EU’s digital laws—all of them—to his list of trade demands.

[lover-of-mine]

Just wanted to let you know, the api that was used is hosted in Russia (and therefore isn't liable under GDPR). There have been many concerns associated with it regarding data privacy like, selling individuals' personal information, refusing to delete when a request is submitted, and so on. The legality of its activities might depend upon a country's laws but I think upon reading its terms and policy, most people would agree that it is unethical.

Gdpr is only liable inside the European Union regarding EU citizens. You're not saying what you think you are. Also, we're not selling information. But sure, you want a path that doesn't go through pullpush? Here you go!

[theyhavetakenovermylife]

im not gonna lie, a little sad n disappointed that u use genAI for images…

Not gonna lie, I am very sad and disappointed that this is a conversation that is need to be had, on the platform of a TMNT reader insert writer. A conversation base of an image, created for the soul purpose of creating a idea for an outfit in a smut, generated in a part of the world, where AI regulations are becoming more and more strict (which I fully support, may I add), with the focus on ethical usage of Data and AI, among many other laws that are put in place to protect people's jobs and their personal data.

I live in the EU - one of the places with the most strict laws when it comes to personal data, and one of the first places to actually put an AI law into place. The AI act of 2024.

To those of you that do not know about the EU AI act, you can read about it here on the EU Parliament's webside: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

In other words, the EU wants AI to help create jobs and job opportunities, not steal them. Part of that is classifiactions. The AI I used to help give the reader an idea of what Bluestar's outfit would be (which I also disclosed as an AI image, as the law requrise in this part of the world), is classified as a low/lower-risk generative AI, that has to follow transparency requirements and the EU copyright law.

I do not know how other countries tackles AI, nor what laws they are planning on putting in place. I follow along in the EU and Danish conversations and laws about AI, as they actually are a big part of my studies as a future pedagog.

Part of my job is to look at AI as an aiding tool - not an overtaker. More specifically, I am learning how I can use AI as a tool for people in our community, at may have limited ways of expression or need extra help. Along with that, I also have make sure that the AI used, aline with the EU GDPR law (General Data Protection Regulation), as that is very much a big part of not just my future job, but everyone else's in the EU.

Now, I've just told you about the EU AI Act of 2024, but not how my country of Denmark has been talking and putting in protective measures on AI since 2019, with the focus on ethical usage of AI, aka protecting people and their jobs. Heck, this is the country that outlawed Uber, because it took jobs from Taxi drivers.

Companies in Denmark has been requred - by law - to report on their use of AI and Data Ethics since 2021. In other words, my country take AI and data very seriously, and don't mess around when it come to that.

Why this focus on the EU and Denmark you may ask? Well, that's because all of these laws and proposed laws, are some that I follow on a daily basis as a Danish citizen. A country that has focused on the digital ethics for years. I live in a country, where we teach children how to use AI in an ethical manner, and where we teach university how to use AI as a tool - a compliment to their studies - and not something that is supposed to take over their studies, rendering them obsolete.

I'm sorry, but whatever lack of rules and regualtions other countries may have, does not apply to me, and the increasingly strict set of rules I have to follow in my country.

I am very aware that people in Hollywood are losing their jobs due to AI, and I think it's horrifing. I'm very aware that graffic designers in other countries have lost jobs to AI, and it makes me very sad. But I am not a lord of regulations in other countries - missing or not. I am just a Danish citizen, following the Danish law and rules, and whether or not other places will look at such rules and laws themselves, I have no control over.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox, that is calling me all sorts of names, saying that I don't care about the environment, because I generated an AI image, totally disregarding the fact that I live in one of the most carbon neutral cities in the western world, and not knowing that I was one of the first generations of students, studying at the Danish FN's World Goals profile schools.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox, telling me i am uneducated, when this is literally part of my studies. When my studies and future job opportunities - among many others -, literally requries that I'm up to date with the laws regarding data and AI usage for my own country, and have been doing so, ever since I first started working in 2020.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox saying that I am ruining the job opportunities, because I didn't pay an artist to illustrate an image. What money may I ask you? I'm a student, doing this for free, because I enjoy it, with literally no monetary gains from this, what so ever. So what money??

I am sad and disappointed that the platform I use to write TMNT stories, should now become a ground for dicussions about AI, when that is something that should be taken up with the rule makers of where ever you live, and not a TMNT reader insert writer on Tumblr.

I refuse to take further part in the discussion about AI using my Tumblr platform, only deciding to do so now, as many messages I started recivieng were hurtful, starting to boarder on the abusive.

I leave you with this power point, showing you how AI is viewed along side jobs and people's job views and opportunities in Denmark as by 2024, made by the Nordic firm Implement Consultation Group.

Remember to treat each other with kindness, and understand the round world is different everywhere💚

[ranmagender]

[ID: a checked box with text from archiveofourown.org that reads: "By checking this box, you consent to the processing of your personal data in the United States and other jurisdictions in connection with our provision of AO3 and its related services to you. You acknowledge that the data privacy laws of such jurisdictions may differ from those provided in your jurisdiction. For more information about how your personal data will be processed, please refer to our Privacy Policy."]

I find the language in this strange, i suppose this is meant to be able to run the site while not complying with the EU's GDPR datalaws? Also theres not federal data privacy laws in the US, only statewide laws that differ from each other. So what state is it in?

According to the privacy policy its because they use "subprocessors" like google, 1password and amazon web services that process some of the data.

I like ao3 well enough but this is...odd, ive never seen a website ask you to check this kind of thing

[bubblegumpopdefiance]

What to consider with TikTok and Red Note

I'm feeling spicy today, I know.

So, unless you've been hiding under a rock the past year, you're probably aware that the US government is looking to ban TikTok. Politicians will split hairs insisting it is not a ban so I'm not going to argue whether or not it is. What I will argue is this:

Privacy rights within the United States are in stark contrast to the EU's GDPR (aka, the right to be forgotten). Here, if you post something online it will likely stay there forever. You can attempt to use the leverage of the GDPR to get info removed, but if you are not in the EU or a EU citizen, it is possible that tech companies will just choose not to comply. I work in this field. I have personally handled GDPR requests. I have seen it on the inside.

In the US, there ARE some level of privacy concerns with HIPAA and other identifiable data points. Aside from HIPAA, it's often just best efforts to retain your data privacy.

Which leads to the big issue. In the wake of the Patriot Act in the US, the US government has worked closely with social media companies to access and analyze social media data. Even if you ignore the personal implications of data privacy (I started studying on Duo Lingo and now all my adds are no longer in English. Spooky, huh? Want a really unsettling one? I'm learning Hebrew and I started getting anti-Israel ads. Put your opinions on Gaza aside for a second and consider how sinister that is)

Anywho. What I want to emphasize is that the US government doesn't give a crap about your privacy. We'd have the GDPR if they did. The US government doesn't want OTHER countries--especially China--to have access to data and data trends.

So, by all means join the movement to Red Note, but do consider the privacy concerns and how much you want China to know about you.

Frankly, you should consider what data you want the US government to know.

[mllemaenad]

Right, well, I wanted to write, so I'm going to do that, even if my wrists hurt. Things I will pay for later, but make me feel better now.

Have now listened to episodes 1 and 2 of The Magnus Protocol.

My first impression is that this is much worse than what was going on in The Magnus Archives.

The Magnus Institute was a private institution with no obvious access to other people's information (Magnus's occasional psychic spying notwithstanding). Most information it received seems to have at least been given willingly. There are a handful of instances of John forcing people to talk, yes, but not so many that I am constantly concerned for the privacy of London's citizens. Gertrude is said to have disliked compelling people to talk (Family Business), so while her tally very likely exceeds John's purely due to the length of time she was in the job, it's still probably not very high. It's impossible to account for the behaviour of previous archivists of course but, well, the whole place is set up to entice people in to tell their tales. I would hazard that most of the materiel in the archives was volunteered.

Even in cases where someone was forced – at least they knew about it, because they were there. The lady in Scrutiny who was so deeply disturbed by John's behaviour was also able to make that behaviour stop just by rolling up to The Magnus Institute and reporting it – which is a reasonably straightforward outcome, given the general weirdness of their world.

I don't mean to say that The Magnus Institute didn't do harm – it very obviously did. But even in terms of its final apocalypse, we're looking at a horror that lasted mere months (assuming a passage of time that broadly corresponds to the broadcasting schedule) before a group of disgruntled employees (and Georgie) burned the nightmare tower down, stabbed Magnus and reset reality. There were limitations to The Magnus Institute's reach, and Jonah Magnus's personal ambitions concluded with an utter, embarrassing flop by any reasonable estimation.

Here, though, you're looking at a government department with truly concerning access to people's data. The forum-based statement in First Shift is perhaps not too awful (forum threads can often be read by anyone, even if actually posting requires an account), but the earlier piece regarding the bereaved woman was a private email thread, and the story in Making Adjustments is drawn from a recording of a woman's session with her therapist. Sam calls out the massive invasion of privacy this sort of thing entails, but is shut down on the grounds that it's fine because they "work for the government".

Alice Ok, so looks like it's an email. Sam And I just… read it? Is that even legal? Alice Probably. We do work for the government. Sort of. Sam What about GDPR? Alice Look, Sam, I don't know what to tell you. This is the job. I've been doing it for years and there's never been any problems. Maybe ask Lena? She’d probably know. – The Magnus Protocol: First Shift

While it is too early to definitively establish the worldbuilding rules here:

In The Magnus Archives, giving a statement was functionally feeding an eldritch power

Gertrude Robinson took statements, but kept the archives themselves in a state of disarray, to impede Magnus's plans (Dwelling)

Much of The Magnus Archives played on the difference between knowing a thing and understanding it

The characters in The Magnus Protocol are not just collecting, but blindly categorising statements – they are organising them by keyword, but not encouraged to analyse what they see or hear – Alice notes that they are paid not to care (Making Adjustments)

At least in The Magnus Archives, making a statement tended to come with consequences: typically horrifying recurring nightmares

So you have to wonder – what consequences will there be for these people, who have had their stories stolen from them?

In terms of workplace horror, this is very much coming at it from the opposite direction. The Magnus Archives was about the horrible job you couldn't quit. Most people find themselves stuck in these for economic reasons rather than supernatural ones, although in fairness both Martin (Children of the Night) and Melanie (Dig) are explicitly called out as very much needing the work, but the characters are nevertheless stuck and constantly call back to the fact that they would absolutely quit – if only they could.

It ran on punishing hours and constant exhaustion, the expectation that you would take on tasks you were in no way qualified or trained for (this started with "archiving" and escalated quickly to "apocalypses"), the boss who expected you to "just know" things you couldn't possibly know at all, and a soul destroying amount of responsibility with little hope of advancement. The same person ran the institute since its founding, literally consuming his employees along the way, and if you wanted, say, to be Head Archivist, you were very much stuck waiting for the current occupant of the role to die.

It is significant that, with the noted exception of Eric Delano, all of Gertrude's assistants died on the job (some of them by her hand), and tallying John's assistants is a bit like listing off the wives of Henry VIII: dead, dead, dead, divorced, survived, status unknown. While the story leans on deaths for drama, it gets a lot of mileage out of using historical data, so characters stick around. It's weird for them to be actually gone.

The Magnus Protocol opens with Teddy quitting the OIAR to take a job in insurance. The very first thing you learn about this place is that people leave, and this idea is reinforced a number of times even in the first two episodes: Gwen is pressured to resign by Lena because she is "difficult", and Lena notes outright that, for most people, this job is strictly short term:

Lena Hmmm. I’ve always known you thought you were slumming it down here, but I never actually considered you might think of this as the first step of a career. Most people simply move on within 12 months or so. Gwen I’m not most people. – The Magnus Protocol: First Shift

Moreover, Making Adjustments concludes first with a fraught conversation about possible redundancies and then with Alice accusing Sam (however playfully) of looking to "jump ship" when he's seen researching The Magnus Institute.

This is the horrible job you might lose tomorrow. While the threat in The Magnus Archives was that you were probably going to die in this job, here it leans more toward – if you didn't show up tomorrow, who would question it? People leave.

It is a night shift, for no clear reason – they're doing data entry on what definitely looks like non-essential information so why the hell can't they do that in the day? Employees are not encouraged to think about their work, and Gwen is criticised for favouring accuracy over speed. It is grimly impersonal, and what little solidarity there is appears to be hard won; it's noted, for instance, that Colin is really only social with Alice, and Alice seems committed to team camaraderie.

But above that is the sense that the employees are considered too insignificant to participate in what is really happening here. I mean, among other things, Colin seems to be having a wildly different workplace experience to everyone else.

Alice postulates that they are a fossilised department – one that only really exists because it's been forgotten – although even she notes that the theory only works if you don't poke at it too hard:

Sam I've no real idea what the OIAR even is. Alice You and everyone else. I’ve checked and there's not really much info on it. My current working theory is that maybe it got set up in the 70s, back when everyone was off their tits on LSD and giving ghost-hunters massive grants to wave crystals in graveyards. I reckon at some point they must have put together a small government department to, like, oversee the spending and monitor this stuff and no-one's noticed it's still going. Sam Makes sense. Alice As long as you don’t pay too much attention. – The Magnus Protocol: First Shift

Even if that is a bit extreme, the general consensus is that their work goes nowhere and does nothing. Which fits broadly with the general lack of action and urgency in the department ... unless you happen to be Colin.

Alice Colin! There’s my guy! How's it hanging? Is it an app yet? Do we have a minimalist logo? I assume you’ve finished all the social features? Colin Don't you start. I swear I'm going to shove a cable down that prick's throat, pull it out his ministerial anus and floss him to death. ... Teddy Colin, mate, you know you’re never getting out of here. Colin Christ, don’t say that. Teddy Even if his nibs lets you off the hook, which he won’t, you couldn’t bring yourself to just leave. Not 'til you’ve figured out all these fun little errors. Colin Or they finally kill me. ... Colin I already have to explain to some chinless inbred politician that we’re running on something as old as the goddamn Atari Falcon, now I’ve got some green little smartarse giving me lip for it too? Well you can take your funny little lines and shove them up – – The Magnus Protocol: First Shift

Colin, specifically, is suffering from ministerial oversight. A lot of it, apparently. Departments that only continue to exist because they've been forgotten don't typically have the responsible minister leaning on the IT manager. Not even on the boss – the IT guy. It's interesting because his specific level of stress and frustration seems more consistent with what was going on in The Magnus Archives than here.

And then, of course, there are the stories themselves. It's impossible not to note that the text-to-speech programs sound an awful lot like the protagonists of the previous series. Presumably this is plot relevant, or else it's a really distracting choice. It's impossible to state at this stage whether that means it actually is them or not, but assuming for the moment that it is (because it is not interesting to discuss other possibilities until they become interesting) then what they have to say seems noteworthy.

They are presumably reacting to Sam specifically (welcome to the cursed protagonist club, new guy!), possibly to the box he ticked during onboarding, and likely to whatever past trauma led him to this job in the first place. And both seem to be issuing a warning.

Norris/Martin tells a story that Gwen classifies as "reanimation", but I admit I'm not sure I agree. The thing sounds like an iteration of the Anglerfish monster.

Norris/Harriet Winstead “Arthur? Is that you?” And that voice I have loved for twenty years answered: “Some of him.” – The Magnus Protocol: First Shift

Archivist Are you the same Sarah Baldwin that disappeared in Edinburgh in August 2006? Sarah Some of her. Skin. A few memories. Not on the inside. – The Magnus Archives: Return to Sender

That feels at least in part like an Easter egg – no newcomer is going to recognise the Anglerfish – but it is the crossing of the boundary: this is the first true story they heard, and proof that there is something very wrong with the world. And presumably the themes of grief and loss that pervade the story would relate pretty strongly to Martin's whole ... situation. I'm assuming nobody here chose to be a text-to-speech program.

Chester/John, meanwhile, issues a fairly stern warning about The Magnus Institute. The canary in the coal mine is a bit on-the-nose as a metaphor, sure, but if I were trying to explain to someone what was wrong with that place, I would likely also be blunt. The rough thing, though, is that quite explicitly no one heeds the warning: while the "removed" image is not described it pretty clearly illustrated RedCanary's fate. It's not just that the canary died down the mine. It's that it died in vain, because no one understood what killed it. And of course, it does pique Sam's interest to the point that he starts digging in to what happened. I'm disinclined to believe that curiosity is bad in these stories – if anything, John's issue was that he could never find out the things he needed to know fast enough to make a good decision. But there is a point there ... if you start looking into things, you have to be prepared to deal with them.

The third one, in Making Adjustments seems to be playing somewhat on The Picture of Dorian Gray: Sam and Gwen start the episode by doing practice runs on classification using classic horror, and the story, when it begins, draws on that confusion between art and subject. You can line Dorian up beside Dracula and Frankenstein any day. But the bigger point seems to be that the catalyst for this happened on camera:

Daria Before I could reply they hit a button on their set-up and suddenly we were live streaming with lights in my eyes and their arm tight around my shoulders. I don’t remember much of what they said to their viewers, but they kept telling everyone how lucky I was whilst they dragged me into the chair. – The Magnus Protocol: Making Adjustments

There are nested violations in this story: Daria expected a photo shoot, but at no point agreed to be tattooed on camera. Beyond that, the story she told in private to her therapist is now being recorded and catalogued by the OIAR. And whatever happened to Daria, this "Ink5oul" person seems to have profited by it, and by things like it.

I must admit, I'm not much of a "what entity is this" person, because as far as I could tell the general consensus on that in general fell between "that's arbitrary" and "all of them, probably, if only by their conspicuous absence". That sort of thing is very useful when talking about the people and their particular obsessions – if Simon Fairchild turned up, for example, you knew exactly what sort of aggravating bullshit you were in for – but worrying too much about the exact nature of a supernatural manifestation rarely leads anywhere useful.

I am more interested in the broader implications of how the story is told. In The Magnus Archives, the characters read the stories aloud – and usually adopted the persona, and sometimes even the accent – of the original statement giver. That had supernatural implications, of course, but also played into the broader themes of the story: John is very much invested in the individuals. The tragedy of Jane Prentiss, the mystery of Gertrude Robinson – these are his obsessions. Pretty much the only point he scores in his conversation with Leitner (The Librarian) is being able to instantly spot a passing reference to Gerard Keay: John is crap at the cosmology, but he's been paying attention to the people. Many of the recurring characters are very dead by the time the story starts, but they are kept alive in the narrative because the living characters step into their shoes, and care about what they did and what became of them.

Here, though, there is built in distance between the active protagonists and the individual horror stories. They largely don't even read them – Alice says she "skim(s) the case for keywords" (Making Adjustments) and otherwise tries to ignore what is happening. When a story is read aloud it is done by the text-to-speech programs, and they, as John and Martin did, adopt the personas of the authors in a way that sounds much more fluid than software from the 90s should be capable of. When the story comes straight from the source, it is not told to Sam or Alice or Gwen, but to someone else entirely. There is a reason for the audience to connect with the stories – from that external perspective you're getting pretty much the same thing you did in The Magnus Archives – but the actual characters have no reason to connect, or even to truly listen or empathise with what they're hearing, and doing so is regarded as a mistake.

Which makes you wonder – what might you miss when you're not paying attention to the people?