I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I’m anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula’s policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn’t written by lawyers, I can see how you’d not be a fan.
However beyond being in legalese I’m not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world’s privacy policy Nebula’s looks “good enough” to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that’s like… pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have.
I don’t have an “anchor point” other than what’s what’s fair and respectful of your customers. “We’re going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” is neither.
“We’re going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers”
That’s a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this:
The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies.
and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says:
We do not “sell” personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] […] Nevada law defines “sale” to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law.
So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don’t know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a “shithole” that “collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” based on the text of the privacy policy as provided.
Oh, I didn’t realize they said they wouldn’t sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that…
I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I’m anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula’s policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn’t written by lawyers, I can see how you’d not be a fan.
However beyond being in legalese I’m not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world’s privacy policy Nebula’s looks “good enough” to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that’s like… pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have.
I don’t have an “anchor point” other than what’s what’s fair and respectful of your customers. “We’re going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” is neither.
That’s a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this:
and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says:
So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don’t know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a “shithole” that “collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” based on the text of the privacy policy as provided.
Oh, I didn’t realize they said they wouldn’t sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that…