pga-versions VS site-policy

As best I can tell, they're expecting git and its associated "compare this point against this point" behavior to do that; e.g. https://github.com/OpenTermsArchive/pga-versions/commit/7572...

I got to that link by clicking on "Explore History" underneath "Platform Governance Archive (Major global social media services)" but I don't this second know what "Jurisdiction: European Union" means -- does that mean they only gathered the ToS from .. err, eu.reddit.com(?) or whatever? Unclear

The pull request and an update from GH team on what they mean,

https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/926#issuecomment-...

I'm sorry if the title might seem misleading, but I've based it on the actual PR [1], which says "GitHub does not allow any projects that are designed for, encourage, promote, support, or suggest in any way the use of synthetic or manipulated media for the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery or any content that would constitute misinformation or disinformation under this policy.". Notice the explicit "does not allow".

[1] https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/926

It is possible, yes. It just hampers much of what people expect modern websites to do (though it hinders abuse, as well, which is good!).

But even GitHub, who proudly declared they had removed all non-essential cookies https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ added them back https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/582/files and now if you click either "Manage cookies" or "Do not share my personal information" at the bottom of the page, you'll see they have the common "Required", "Analytics", "Social Media", "Advertising" categories.

(Bummed that they have the Advertising category.)

And now they're trying to save face by announcing this right after revealing that that they will no longer respect the DNT header, and that they'll be adding tracking cookies: https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/582