The service provides information about its attitude towards ethical, social or political problems or controversies


Service: DeepL
Status: APPROVED
Changes: 5
Source: link
Author: arlo Staff


Protecting your privacy and personal data is very important to us.


Comments:
On 2020-12-26 11:19:52 UTC, Agnes de Lion Staff wrote:

changes-requested: Please link the case to a more suitable quote as they don't seem to have a correlation.

On 2021-01-16 08:16:36 UTC, arlo Staff wrote:

Which quote did you have in mind? My thoughts on the correlation were that user privacy was the controversy, and that their attitude was that it was "important to" them (which isn't terribly specific, but they said it). I'm willing to hear arguments that it's an inappropriate use of the case, but it made sense to me when I applied it and does currently also.

On 2021-01-27 12:14:53 UTC, Agnes de Lion Staff wrote:

According to other points linked to the case, I'd say that a service could fit if it satisfied one of these conditions:
It explains if debates are allowed and if there are prohibited topics: https://edit.tosdr.org/points/9874 (approved)
It defines what is considered offensive/harmful content: for instance https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14744 (pending)
It shows its point of view about social, ethical or political problems: https://edit.tosdr.org/points/7768 (approved)
I agree with the fact that the case is quite unclear, but I didn't approve it mainly because most services claim on their Privacy Policies taking Internet Privacy seriously, even if they are rated with an E on Phoenix (such as Spotify, Microsoft or WhatsApp).
I marked the point as changes-requested to let you link to a quote that could fit in one of these categories, but if there isn't any, you can turn it to declined. Of course the meaning of the case is up to debate, should we open a topic on the forum (in the cases discussion category) to discuss about it?

On 2021-01-27 21:51:59 UTC, arlo Staff wrote:

Good idea, I have done so at https://forum.tosdr.org/t/844

On 2021-02-27 00:00:52 UTC, System Bot wrote:

DECLINED
Point automatically declined as no activity have been monitored over a course of 2 months. Was: changes-requested

On 2021-04-28 05:32:31 UTC, Dr_Jeff Staff wrote:

APPROVED
No comment given



We track editorial changes to analyses and updates to a point's status and display the previous versions here as part of an effort to promote transparency regarding our curation process.

Version 1: 2021-04-28 05:32:30 UTC by Dr_Jeff Staff

Previous Title: No changes recorded

Updated Title: No changes recorded

Previous Analysis: No changes recorded

Updated Analysis: No changes recorded

Previous Status: PENDING

Updated Status: APPROVED

Version 2: 2021-04-15 01:14:20 UTC by arlo Staff

Previous Title: No changes recorded

Updated Title: No changes recorded

Previous Analysis: No changes recorded

Updated Analysis: No changes recorded

Previous Status: DECLINED

Updated Status: PENDING

Version 3: 2021-02-27 00:00:52 UTC by Deleted

Previous Title: No changes recorded

Updated Title: No changes recorded

Previous Analysis: No changes recorded

Updated Analysis: No changes recorded

Previous Status: CHANGES REQUESTED

Updated Status: DECLINED

Version 4: 2020-12-26 11:19:52 UTC by Agnes de Lion Staff

Previous Title: No changes recorded

Updated Title: No changes recorded

Previous Analysis: No changes recorded

Updated Analysis: No changes recorded

Previous Status: PENDING

Updated Status: CHANGES REQUESTED

Version 5: 2020-12-26 04:26:08 UTC by arlo Staff

Previous Title:

Updated Title: The service provides information about its attitude towards ethical, social or political problems or controversies

Previous Analysis:

Updated Analysis: Generated through the annotate view

Previous Status:

Updated Status: PENDING