• null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    What about it is ambiguous or not written for less tech savvy people?

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      You do know they updated it soon after this became a major thing, right?

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        They might have changed the wording, but it’s been insanely clear for many years, and it never at any point implied it changed anything about what websites did.

        • tb_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          You and I may have known, but

          it’s been insanely clear for many years

          If it had been clear it wouldn’t have become an issue.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It isn’t an issue. The exact wording might have changed, but the content has been identical for years and years. It included “sites and others who can see your traffic can do whatever the hell they want” the whole time, in entirely unambiguous idiot proof language.

            This is an imaginary horseshit lawsuit. It was not possible to read the very obvious text and be misled about what incognito mode did or didn’t do at any point, and it was automatically displayed in every tab. There was never at any point any possible room for confusion.