Saw this today and now I’m reconsidering if Boost is right for me. I’m really hoping this is shitty boiler plate that was accidentally copied and over looked because that is some bullshit to say “unless we decide we want to use your personal data for whatever we want”.

I know “legitimate interest” is a phrase from the cookies law but there is no legitimate interest justification for this. My data is my data and I decide who has a legitimate interest in it so advertisers can fuck off, as can Boost if this the direction it’s going.


Edit to say this blew up. I didn’t realise I was kicking as big a hornet’s nest and haven’t read all the comments yet.

To be clear, what I don’t like about this and other provisions in the terms is the language and implications around data use. I’ve no problem with ads being shown - I want developers to get paid for the work they do and that makes it possible for users to have “free” access to software if they can’t afford to purchase.

I also want to add the response from Boost’s dev below to make sure it’s visible. You’ll see that it is boilerplate but required by Google and was present in Boost for reddit. I just hadn’t seen it because I purchased it immediately based on a recommendation. It doesn’t make me happy about it but does remove some doubts I was having about the direction Boost is heading.

I will be purchasing the app to support the dev because I do like Boost but I understand not everyone can afford everything so you’ll see some other suggestions in the comments below that don’t have any ads if you’re not happy with the free version and ads with their associated loss of data privacy.


Dev here.

The dialog and its content is not created by me, it is a standard solution from Google to comply with GDPR and other laws. More info here: https://support.google.com/admob/answer/10114014?hl=en

The consent dialog is also required by Google AdMob to show ads, and it is shown when the ad network is initialized.

When the app launches, first it checks for the remove ads purchase, and if it is not present, it will initialize the ads sdk. The ad network is not initialized if the remove ads purchase is detected.

Boost for Reddit was using the very same ad networks and consent dialog.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They need to be harsher on companies invoking legitimate interest. It should be impossible for a user to use a service/product if they deny the information that falls under a legitimate interest – because by definition, the service/product needs that information to work. Like if I’m scheduling a delivery to my place, my address is a legitimate interest because they can’t deliver it otherwise.

    There just needs to be a crackdown on what’s being claimed. If a user can turn off “legitimate interest” cookies and tracking, and they can still use the website just fine, those cookies and tracking were not legitimate interests.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. A cookie that registers your address may have your address in your computer, and the access it just to autofill the shipping form. No address is being stored or tracked on their end. That would be a legitimate “legitimate interest” cookie. If you deny the use of such cookies, then the website will simply ask you to fill out your address every time. The site can still function in this case.

      Don’t get me wrong - I hate legitimate interest cookie abuse, but I just wanted to clarify that point about “if rejected, then legitimate interest cookies would break the site, and if they don’t then they’re tracking you!”

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        tbf I think it’s in Google’s best interest to do as little legitimate interest fuckery as possible. If they stretch the use of that clause too far the EU will just banhammer the new practice again with stricter terms and higher fines.

          • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds paradoxical but long term they get more value out of just barely overstepping bounds than by, for the brief period until regulation catches up, massively overstepping.

            Doesn’t mean they’ll do that, I fully expect them to abuse the ever living shit out of it, if mega corpos had a brain for long term planning they wouldn’t be caught in this banner mess in the first place