Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
Relevance: new section
 
Drakeula (talk | contribs)
Opt-in: new section
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Relevance ==
==Relevance==


Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Do we need an article for this? It's self-explanatory and it's meaning doesn't inherently change in the context of consumer rights. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:I personally think for the sake of having theme articles as building blocks for incidents, this can definitely stay. It is self-explanatory but from what I understand, if we wanted to base an incident article on opt-out being violated, this would be great for it to have. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that a theme article seems useful.  I don't think it is self explanatory.  The content that was here didn't even mention opt-in vs. opt-out (and how opt-in is often better for consumer protection issues.)  (Pretty much anything many companies make opt-out should be opt-in (like selling my data), and anything they voluntarily make opt-in (like digital coupons) should be opt-out.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
== Opt-in ==
I redirected opt-in here (since they are related concepts.)  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 22:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)