[kevin_thibedeau]

It's a tracking pixel. They fool you into sending it.

[afavour]

A technicality without a meaningful difference. Users didn't consent to sending it, nor were they aware of it.

[staz]

If someone attach a bomb to you car that detonate when you start the motor; they didn't fool you into killing yourself.

[janalsncm]

The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code on their own website, and the tracking code worked as designed.

[worik]

> The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code...

The civil discussion should now be about the punishment for that.

Regulation is required for handling people's data

[dylan604]

Sounds like that will work similar to incarcerating drug users instead of the drug makers and distribution network?

[janalsncm]

In your analogy I would argue the website owners are analogous to the distribution network and Meta/Tiktok are analogous to the manufacturers.

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.

[dylan604]

Sure, but that's getting too far into it. Not that you're wrong though. The point was, the people that make the thing never/rarely get punished, but it is the individuals that get the hammer. If websites get fined for running the evilCorp SDKs, then the problem would be more effectively solved by going after evilCorp for providing the SDK. If there was no SDK nor reward for using it, the websites being fined would not have needed to be fined. Trying to scare people into not doing something is much less effective

[joquarky]

The former can't afford lawyers.

[adamnemecek]

That's like saying that Ted Kaczynski was innocent, because he didn't force anyone to open the packages.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The government wants these packages sent out to support its domestic surveillance initiative. It helps when 99% are unaware they exist.