Obama removes YouTube from YouTube-side chats US President Barack Obama has removed the YouTube from his YouTube-side chats, after repeated complaints over the video sharer's use of long-term tracking cookies on his official White House blog. On Saturday, Obama's weekly video address made its usual appearance at WhiteHouse.gov. But this time, as reported by CNet, the site …
I must live on a different planet. Almost never do I see adverts on the pages I visit. Cookies are never 'long term' on my system.
I had cause to use a 2nd tier browser the other day and was amazed at all the clutter, garbage, and unimportant information dumped on my screen. What a terrible world to live in where pimps are aloud into your home, onto your monitor, and into your mind. I'd have to shoot my cable modem before letting that happen to me.
Why do we, as a species, sell our mind so cheaply and willingly?
What proportion of their visitors already had a Youtube tracking cookie on their system? Close as damnit to 100%, I'd wager.
Not allowing persistent cookies on federal websites is silly anyway. No remembering text size preferences or any of the other harmless, helpful but persistent things you need them for... I guess the rule stems from the days when the world+ignorant dog thought that cookies allowed websites to access the remote system?
What tracking cookie? The one that gets deleted regularly by my Firefox addin? Maybe the javascript that gets blocked by Noscript? The advert that gets blocked by Adblock?
Take control of your own lives people, stop using browsers that don't GIVE you that control. I've recently been forced to use MSIE to access the website of some fucking stupid company that still uses ActiveX (and whose services we are actively looking to replace with someone who cares about their customers), and the amount of crap out there is truly amazing. What I find more amazing is the fact that people are putting up with that crap. But I guess that's just another example of the population of the planet going up, but the total (not average) IQ dropping. Easily led sheep doing things just because it's "popular", and they're all mostly Microsoft customers.
"MSIE to access the website of some fucking stupid company that still uses ActiveX (and whose services we are actively looking to replace with someone who cares about their customers"
so instead as you seem to be on a anti ms rant I guess you will make it all stadnards complient and sod usability and if it doesn't work well on ie then sod it they should use a better browser right?
cause that would be good for customers! (just pointing out the sarcasm in case you didn't notice)
"What a terrible world to live in where pimps are aloud(sic) into your home, onto your monitor, and into your mind"
Ah, but this is the American dream, 24/7 wall to wall advertising. Pimps supreme, prostitute companies rule the world (or not as "Sir" Fred Goodwin has discovered). YouTube, Facebook I class as the gutter prostitute companies - millions of johns!
If they are visiting Obama's shrine and prostrating themselves before his video image, then there is little point in fussing about a tracking cookie. These people are already in the bag.
The only notable point, and it IS notable, is that the government is once again breaking its own rules. I'm not sure if this is made worse by the element of official ignorance about the technical issue. Is the fact that government is ignorant exculpatory or an additional charge to be laid against them?
Thanks for the reminder to clean out my browser's biscuit tin. Even with Firefox, NoScript & AdBlock there seems to be useless crumbs left lying. Don't want to attract rats.
Would be nice if FF didn't keep resetting prefs to silently allow all that "helpful" crap each time I update it.
Would be even nicer if Google didn't spit a cookie onto all sites that have embedded one of their videos on.
Never has ActiveX been required to make a site work on IE. And yes, standards compliance is better for the average user. If most users, and through them everyone else, have ALREADY been locked into the use of non standard behaviour, undocumented filesystems, file formats, protocols etc then it may seem better just to go along with it, but in the long run it really isn't.
It may seem like people are ranting too much about MS making crap products, but that is really not what it's about. It's not the only company that needs watching, but it is probably the best example of one whose vendor lock-in antics are the whole reason for existing rather than merely an extra revenue boosting trick.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
