Here's the entire article:
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Facebook that requested the court intervene in a $15 billion class-action lawsuit alleging the firm illegally tracked the online activities of its users when they are not on the platform, thereby violating the federal Wiretap Act law.
“Facebook’s user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual’s likes, dislikes, interests, and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users a meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives,” the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling (pdf) last year, saying that Facebook users suffered a clear invasion of privacy.
The “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a clear invasion of the historically recognized right to privacy,” the court ruled at the time. “Therefore, Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their privacy claims under the Wiretap Act, [the Stored Communications Act], and [the Children’s Internet Protection Act], as well as their claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Facebook’s appeal, meaning the suit can go forward.
The lawsuit alleged that the Menlo Park, California-based tech giant had secretly tracked users’ visits to websites that use Facebook’s features such as the “like” or “share” buttons, even if the users did not click on either of the two buttons.
The litigation also accuses the company of violating the privacy rights of its users under California law, but Facebook’s appeal to the Supreme Court involved only the Wiretap Act. The 1968 law has also been invoked in lawsuits against Google and Microsoft.
Four individuals filed the proposed lawsuit in California federal court seeking $15 billion in damages for Facebook’s actions between April 2010 and September 2011. The company stopped its nonconsensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher in 2011, court papers said. They further argued that Facebook unjustly collected the data and sold it to advertisers for a profit.
Facebook, in response, said it maintained privacy standards and should not be penalized for communications that users partake in, saying that the data was collected to show users better content and more targeted ads on its platform. It has further said the data was not collected in an unfair manner.
“Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties; it was a direct participant,” the company said in a legal filing.
Facebook now discloses that it collects data when people visit websites with the firm’s plug-ins. It reached a settlement over its practices with the Federal Trade Commission about a decade ago.
Did you even make this post? Wherever you found this, it looks like a compressed jpeg.
Did they migrate away from the original url? I had joined but I'm not longer able to access the forum.. A bit odd, isn't it?
Many thanks.
Thank you
I tend to dislike these kinds of images, as they don't provide any sources, and they mainly rely off you already having an open mind to this type of information. Plus, there's a typo in there.
Spez: It's probably not worth my time to do this, but here it is anyways.
Here is the sources for both images used in this "meme" formatted post, which is quite low quality if I say so myself:
http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2014/04/23/nevada-showdown/ (Archive)
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3T15520140430 (Archive)
First image from first link, sixth in the list. (Direct)
Second image is from the second link, and is the only image on the article. (Direct)
If you didn't make this type of image, please try to provide sources when uploading it. But if you did make this, please try to make your post higher quality, especially when it comes to providing sources. It may just make people believe you more.
Spez 2: I just want to add that I apologize if my post comes off as backseat moderating or aggressive, I've just been seeing an influx of low-quality, facebook-tier posts upvoted to the front, or they've always been there, and I'm just noticing..
Probably to get democrats to be against it, considering they've been against everything else he supported.
Does anyone know if there is a list for all of these posts? A lot of these screenshot compilations can be "explained away" by people who are asleep.. Links to archives or the pages themselves are a lot harder to memory hole.
Sorry, the fact your english is extremely subpar, and you broke up the link in order to avoid it hyperlinking means I'm not going to look at a damn thing you post.
It's spherical
You're right, my bad! Should be fixed
This is old news. It's already been known, even long before the 2020 Faux-lection.
Archive.is link: https://archive.is/fzbbD Remember not to give these assholes any support by viewing their pages!
Spez: Accidentally put non-archive link
Non 'screenshot of twitter post of headline only' links:
Associated Press (ew): Biden sets May 1 target to have all adults vaccine-eligible | Archive.is
Non-archive link provided only as a means to compare. Don't purposely give AP any support ;)
Non 'screenshot of twitter post of headline only' links:
Oklahoma Watch: Gov. Kevin Stitt to Lift Oklahoma COVID-19 Restrictions | Archive.is
Koko News 5: Gov. Stitt announces he will remove statewide COVID-19 restrictions on events, Oklahomans | Archive.is
Context button seems to be broken.
Can I get a source for the quote? Looking it up on multiple search engines pretty much only leads to the "fact checkers" of the globe or sketchy sites.
Quick Spez: Apparently this is from a speech Putin had in Duma? Any speeches I've come across related to Duma have not had this quote in the text.
Remember, being in agreement with a group, doesn't always mean the group is right. I'm saying this with the outside view of not frequenting this site often enough to know what's been happening with catsfive.
spez: typo
But it wasn't scorched earth. You could still discuss about george, just not post DIRECT links to george. Evspra even mentioned archive links were fine.
Don't think it does, but it doesn't have built-in ads either
I don't think you understood the ban. It's ONLY direct links to geoege that are banned. Go back to the announcement and read what Evspra said.
The magical three words:
No OUTSIDE comms
I'll take three word sentence that everyone knows, yet few heed for 300
I'm not sure what the original meaning of their comment was, but my interpretation of it was that they were referring to your edit that you made.