Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 132,147

      1. I see that TCF3 seems unlikely to do away with the completely arbitrary requirement that CMP vendors register w/the IAB in a centralized JSON even tho registration seems to guarantee no particular quality or qualification & gives no guarantee it is actually them forming a string.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood +1 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      Ok, not actually TCF3, GPP, which doesn't change anything about TCF2.x just packages it up in yet another string. Chronotope/1376717656649310211
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood 0
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    TBH mby I'm wrong... but every time I dive into the TCF specs it exhausts me. It's overly technical, under documented, against human-readability in transmission, and built around an aggressively over-complicated understanding oh how opting in/out should work under GDPR.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      The fact that these flows, subdivision of data and vendors, and user experiences are legal is an indictment of GDPR as a policy. Whether or not TCF is legal... it shouldn't be. And a future where we have USP and other compliance measures made *more* like TCF is just depressing.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +2 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        I do increasingly wonder if part of the problem is not just the specification but GDPR itself. I suspect the regulation is not entirely blameless here.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -3 🙁

Search tweets' text