Jim, just for you:
Jim, just for you:
Is this legal in the EU? Revealing financial information without the user’s consent?
Im not playing any victim.
I just dont see any requirement for users to be classified by how they subscribe / decide to pay for roon.
But on the positive side, i guess this situation will remove the need for some users to announce they are “lifetime” every 5 posts they make.
Will also help in avoiding certain posters moving forward…
A friend mentioned this might be against the law in EU - to disclose (implied) financial information - assuming this relates to how much one on is invested in the product - perhaps a stretch but some might not want others knowing if they are licensed users or not.
This is ridiculous. No financial situation is disclosed. Many of the non-lifetime subscribers have spent more than the lifer, and many have not (yet). What information can you gleam?
Knowing if the user is licensed is interesting as there are many pirates and lurkers making noise here.
Knowing if a user is in trial can help support understand familiarity with the system.
That would be me.
You are a non-lifer. You are our bread and butter. We are in business because of subscribers. There is no “line”, but if there was, you might belong at the back of it for suggesting I need a “dumbass badge”.
Seriously dudes, you make a mountain out of an anthill. Sheesh.
I guess we could look into hiding this badge for normal users if you guys really hate it.
Is it though? Together with their name (or nickname), the fact that someone bought / subscribed to Roon, can be considered (partially) personal information, which you cannot anyhow disclose to the entire internet? That information can certainly be useful to Roon, but that should be kept only to those people in Roon that need to know (I assume anyone that deals with support).
Other sites do this as well. Take Last.fm as an example. They display a badge when you have a running subscription.
I’m no lawyer, hence the question. Would be nice if this is a toggle that the user can flip. I think it is a sound principle to obtain consent before one shares user-related information, regardless of whether it’s mandated by law or not.
What subscription a user may or may not have is not personal identifIable information (PII), even when combined with their username.
Moreover, there’s no such thing as partially PII; it either is or isn’t personal information. There’s absolutely nothing unique about the subscription that could be combined to identify someone.
In contrast, the username is PII. For instance, I use my real name whereas others use a pseudonym. In both cases, this information may be combined with other data to identify the individual.
However, we , not Roon choose our ID, and Roon doesn’t share other PII, e.g., email address, location data, IP addresses publicly, that could help identify an individual.
How do you guys like that? I just hid the flair icons for some of you… others can still see them.
I know 5 John Does. Of those, 2 have an account under said name on this forum and one has a subscription. Before the badges, I didn’t know who is who. With the badges I do. It can indirectly identify a person?
There is? A piece of information on its own may not uniquely identify a person, but combined with other information, it can. See the example above. Maybe partial is not the right terminology but GDPR also regulates this “partial” information.
You don’t need to hide them from me as I was fine with them.
I just mentioned other sites do this as well.
Currently I can only see an overlay for trialers. Maybe an additional overlay for users without a license at all is needed (circle with a cross in it) given the use cases you gave?
Anyways. I’ve brought up my concerns. As a user I don’t care who has a subscription or not. For Roon I can certainly see the value. Pretty much all support software has such information. I think it doesn’t have to be shown publicly. But I also don’t object to this information about me being shown.
You can enable it for me. I like the feature.
I left that one, as it’s helpful to know who is a trailer. Community members help trialers all the time, and knowing that they are “new” can help them be a bit more patient with their lack of familiarity.
If a trialer has a problem with it, they can cancel their trial.
Are you familiar with the term “SJW”?
I wasn’t. I looked it up and I personally don’t consider myself one. I do take offence
I’d rather you address the concerns brought up rather than name calling. As I said in my posts, I’m no expert so I’m happy to stand corrected. It’s just that I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary.
The term usually refers to people on the far left advocating for things they don’t actually have a deep-seated conviction about. In your case, the lack of your conviction and more of a “im just asking questions/looking out for others” attitude reminded me of SJW-ism.
I ascribe all these types of posts to SJW-ism. No one needs you to look out of them. Complain about what you believe, stop trying to look out for everyone else.
I didn’t call you a SJW, and I wouldn’t because it doesn’t apply here, but the fact that you flat out stated your lack of conviction on this topic reminded me of the complaints around “social justice”.
@Martin_Webster’s post is a good clarification. He’s even brought up the problem of usernames and the notion of absolutism when it comes to PII. Both of these items are basically lifted from the laws.
I can’t see any of the new icons anymore. I rather liked the new feature, but I’m no expert in EU law.