• azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          IIRC it was one lower court case in Germany… That’s so many asterisk attached as to be meaningless, even if that judgement isn’t struck down or amended (unlikely), that still only applies to Germany (or was it one state within Germany?).

          The way the EU works is that it mandates each sovereign country to implement the mandate into their national laws, so jurisprudence in Germany doesn’t mean anything at all anywhere else.

          • Infinitus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Also, courts in Europe can’t make laws like in the US. Their rulings aren’t considered to be law.

            • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s a bit more nuanced than that…

              Civil Law (used almost everywhere in the world outside the Commonwealth) still has Case Law, but it is held subordinate to legislation (itself usually built on top of Roman and Napoleonic law), whereas historically common law is built out of nothing but case law (because English kings had better things to do than concern themselves with the squabbles of peasants).

              Still, when presented with a novel case that isn’t specifically legislated for, judges in Civil Law countries can still make a ruling, and subsequent trials will have to take that ruling into acount.

            • Gladaed@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              How is that relevant? Just because some foreign entity has different laws doesn’t mean you cannot have yours. We shouldn’t always repeat us policy as gospel. Just look at their social policy nightmare.

        • Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          To discern if an add blocker is in use you are processing information not essential to your service.

          You could, eg. Not start the stream until the add is over if it wasn’t blocked without violating this. In the end whether or not the user uses an add blocker is not relevant to your ability to stream a video.

        • ZickZack@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Basically the stuff they need to detect whether ads are actually shown needs information of the device state that are generally not available according to Article 5(3) ePR.

    • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It was some low effort attempt talking about “code that I do not like running on my PC” or something like that, words like “malware” were thrown around. Basically if detecting adblocks is illegal so should be any JavaScript code.