I’m not using Google or Meta services, but they are still tracking me. That’s my point. Stop simping for corpo rapists.

If of was meant to be OnlyFans, that was not clear at all. It looks like a typo.

I’m still not clear how they would access it.

I did not consent to anything, I did not agree to any terms and conditions. Consent is active, not passive. Companies like Google and Meta are also tracking you regardless of whether or not you are using their service through other websites. Again, I did not consent, I am not using their service. Stop defending predatory, rapist behavior.

For sure, everybody knows that historically all men were laughed out of existence and all women were murdered.

Girls aren’t corpo slop machines that are maximized to exploit you while simultaneously destroying the planet?

Except you’re literally not heard?

I didn’t consent to this. If you’re cool with people taking advantage of you without your consent then that’s on you, but acting like exploiting people without any consent is somehow not an issue then you are extremely fucked in the head.

Why would it be trivial for them to get access to your browser?

Dude, stop posting the exact same fucking thing over and over again.

I don’t know anything about sponsor agreements. Just because the sponsors don’t have direct access, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways for them to get that information.

Big tech is the problem. Indie tech is still cool as shit.

Sounds like a you problem. You fucked up so everyone needs constant surveillance? Fuck that authoritarian nonsense and fuck you for supporting it.

YouTube knows exactly where you start and stop the video, what segments you skip, etc., etc. and the channel has access to those analytics. Not saying that anyone shares that with the sponsors, but the mechanism IS in place.

That Mitchell and Webb Look! Hilarious British sketch comedy show, and if you enjoy it, check out Peep Show by the same comedians, David Mitchell and Robert Webb. Even funnier IMO!

Impossibly difficult is an oxymoron. If something is impossible, it can’t be difficult because if it is difficult that means its very hard to achieve but still possible. If something is impossible, that means you cannot do it, full stop. It is not possible. Those are two completely different things.

My point is if something is impossible to do, that doesn’t make it difficult. It makes it impossible. Those are two different things.

That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn.

How is that not blatantly false? Piss off troll.

They weren’t idiots either. They weren’t stupid enough to think technology was static and would never improve, firearms technology was literally improving during their lifetime. They wrote the constitution the way they did deliberately. The constitution was meant to be a living document, true, but the only reason to change that amendment is, simply put, fascism.

That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn.

That’s blatantly false. Timothy Murphy killed a British officer during the Revolutionary War at a distance of 300-400 yards. They absolutely had the capability of precise marksmanship at the time the constitution was written. Repeating rifles were not a foreign concept either. They weren’t common yet, but there was no reason for them to believe the technology wouldn’t be improved.