Not the person you are replying to, but on Firefox 75 player.vimeo.com is requesting WebVR permissions on gentle.app upon first load.
Also just quickly I want to say I love the idea and intentions behind Gentle! I haven't had a chance to play around with it too much yet but it really is a pretty app too.
Thanks for the info! I guess it also only happens if you have some VR device setup. Sorry for the trouble with that. I'll swap out the vimeo embed soon since that sounds like annoying and unnerving behavior.
I can't even tell you how much fun my friends and I are having with this game right now. The ability to do anything in the game (so long as the AI understands it) is just incredible. Thank you for sharing this!
I've found one of the best compromises is using setting uBlock Origin to advanced user mode, globally block 3rd party frames, and enabling a few extra filters that I don't know off hand.
Most sites will still mostly work, and the few that don't usually just need a CDN to be enabled (you can do this per-site).
Yes it happened to me, a hotel was priced significantly cheaper on Google and on their site initially. When the price went up I just called the hotel and the higher rate was their standard and only rate that they offered. The initial advertised price was never an actual option.
FindHotel.com's prices are frequently understated when searching with Google Hotels. You click the link, and the price magically goes up $40, and that number still doesn't include taxes and resort fees.
If the Lanham act applies, possibly[1]. This isn't typical false advertising, though, as it's not claiming their service does a thing it doesn't nor is it defaming a competitor, it's lying about interest in the service.
Looking at the criteria:
> (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
I think a fake number of people looking is a false statement of fact about commercial activity.
> (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
Seems like a false number would deceive anyone who saw it.
> (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
And it would induce them to purchase when they might otherwise hold off the decision.
> (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and
It's the web, so naturally.
> (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
This is where it gets dicey and you'd need to ask a lawyer, or someone familiar with case law. The source I'm citing goes on to say:
> The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading.
I think if you could show, "I would have shopped for another price if I didn't think this was almost sold out," then you might have a case.
But... I suspect your damages would be the difference in prices between booking.com and some competitor, which are likely to be fairly small. The source has a whole section on remedies that might apply.
I think you misunderstand- the parent comment you replied to is referring to ads on Google using a much, much lower price that isn't actually offered by the hotel; it's not referring to whether or not the number of people looking at the ad is misleading/false.
Problem is that they know almost nobody is going to try to contact Google about this, and of those that do, their emails are almost certainly going to be of ignored.
You certainly could, however I guarantee a huge majority of users wouldn't read a lick of what they were agreeing to.
Individual popups don't completely solve this, but it makes more obvious that a specific application is requesting a large amount of permissions. They're a bit more digestible to the crowd that won't bother to read an alert longer than one line.
