5 ms·
Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above.
by phasefactor 4mo ago
Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."
- noutella 4mo agoThey do say they won’t bother, but the rest of the article is actually precisely covering this second point, aka Article 15 of LK Privacy Policy
- loloquwowndueo 4mo agoRhetorical argument is rhetorical?
- SAI_Peregrinus 4mo agoIt's covering article 15 of the GDPR, not of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4mo agoAlso, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.
- elsjaako 4mo agoTo be technically correct: if even a single non-premium member can, for some reason, see who viewed their profile, then the statement "only Premium members can see who has viewed their profile" is false. So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.
- huhkerrf 4mo agoBut the statement wasn't false, was it? I'm not a paying member of LinkedIn, and I can see who visited my profile.
- xerox13ster 4mo agoWhat you have is the ability to see every 5th person who entered your house.
- thrance 4mo agoSeriously, this is what I miss the most in legacy media. Much too often "journalists" will simply relay politicians' statements uncritically, when they're obviously fallacious or straight lies. This is very refreshing on The Register's part.