Have you heard of any companies in the past few years who are trying to mimic human speech? They need lots of example data to do that.
And what would they do with the knowledge that Fartknocker72 posted sonic slash fanfics?
While knowing that 1 specific person likes something is mostly irrelevant, once you link it to an email or real name (just wait for the next data beach), criminals could use that kinda data for blackmail.
Furthermore, companies like Facebook and Google mostly make their money by linking people's behaviour to their interests. They probably won't be caught with their hand in this cookie jar, but it should show you how valuable this data (in massive quantities) is.
FYI: Blue checkmarks were a thing LONG before paying for blue checkmarks was a thing. In the end, I think most people who are making an issue out of this aren't even twitter users (let alone checkmark users) themselves.
If I commission an artist to make me a painting, and I then decide to throw it in a storage bin (or the trash) rather than put it in a gallery - that's my decision. Neither the artist or the general public gets a say in it. Claiming otherwise (especially in case of the public) is pure entitlement.
Agreed, those are pretty permissive licenses (though not completely free), but they're still licenses that you deliberately choose, not ones that were forced upon you.
0x0 doesn't know how to mute people on mastodon and/or has difficulty understanding that when you choose to see all posts on a server, you'll see all posts on a server.
In this thread: People (pretending to be?) incredibly unaware of what incognito browsing is.
Newsflash: It just means your activities are not locally logged. That doesn't mean it's impossible for online parties to track you, just a teensie bit harder. Hell, it literally says so when you open the incognito tab.
Only if you're a twitter user. Otherwise, that marketing budget will just be spent elsewhere.
Then again, why any user of this community would browse without an adblocker is beyond me.