Mike O'Neill
@mikeoneillcloud.bsky.social
With minabird.bsky.social created very first website consent platform (which actually worked). From 2012 worked on DoNotTrack spec as invited expert in W3C TPWG https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/
anti-authoritarian socialist internationalist. 🇺🇦🇪🇺🏴
anti-authoritarian socialist internationalist. 🇺🇦🇪🇺🏴
Reposted by Mike O'Neill
Yeah, really, that’s the thing: don’t assume that OpenAI has a strategy or a masterstroke idea. This is a company that is basically running a 24/7 no IT loads refused multi-billion dollar burn rate hackathon until it runs out of cash and investors to swindle
bsky.app/profile/chan...
bsky.app/profile/chan...
Only $15m?
I must be cynical as I expected that number to be much larger. My experience on Tiktok these days and blocking every 3 accounts due to Sora slop invading my feed.
Do you suppose the strategy is to kill Tiktok by flooding it with slop?
Never mind, that assumes they have strategy.
I must be cynical as I expected that number to be much larger. My experience on Tiktok these days and blocking every 3 accounts due to Sora slop invading my feed.
Do you suppose the strategy is to kill Tiktok by flooding it with slop?
Never mind, that assumes they have strategy.
November 11, 2025 at 3:48 AM
Yeah, really, that’s the thing: don’t assume that OpenAI has a strategy or a masterstroke idea. This is a company that is basically running a 24/7 no IT loads refused multi-billion dollar burn rate hackathon until it runs out of cash and investors to swindle
bsky.app/profile/chan...
bsky.app/profile/chan...
media.licdn.com
November 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Also, the ability to give consent should be retained, because without it, only data subjects who employed a browser generating opt-out signal would be protected, 3rd-party controllers would simply rely on the "legitimate interest" basis claiming to assume the user had not used their right to object.
November 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Also, the ability to give consent should be retained, because without it, only data subjects who employed a browser generating opt-out signal would be protected, 3rd-party controllers would simply rely on the "legitimate interest" basis claiming to assume the user had not used their right to object.
This effectively destroys the obligation to respect the signal by any third-party controller, because, even though they would receive the consent refusal or opt-out signal, they could claim to assume the data was collected by a media organisation.
November 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
This effectively destroys the obligation to respect the signal by any third-party controller, because, even though they would receive the consent refusal or opt-out signal, they could claim to assume the data was collected by a media organisation.
There is a very large loophole in that controllers claiming to be "media organisation" would not be required to respect the signal, so data subjects would not have the right to refuse their online activity being processed for behavioural advertising purposes (paragraph 3).
November 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
There is a very large loophole in that controllers claiming to be "media organisation" would not be required to respect the signal, so data subjects would not have the right to refuse their online activity being processed for behavioural advertising purposes (paragraph 3).
"The data subject shall be able to [give consent or] refuse a request for consent and exercise the right to object pursuant to Article 21(2) through automated and machine readable means".
November 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
"The data subject shall be able to [give consent or] refuse a request for consent and exercise the right to object pursuant to Article 21(2) through automated and machine readable means".