How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?

alt.os.linux: out

On 11/4/14 PDT, 12:38 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , ��uhw��� wrote:

Why are you going on with a troll and worse, x-posting into a troll
control group?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Flickr gives me unlimited space. Dropbox is not a suitable place for
| posting photos for public viewing.

Dropbox works for me, in terms of seeing pictures.
(I don't use any kind of online storage site, so I don't
know about other aspects.) Some of the people here
post links to images at Dropbox and I can see them.
Imgur also seems to work. Then there's arguably the
best option: set up your own website so that you can
display your images as you like.

that option is not free. whether that matters or not depends on many
factors.

I can't see images posted to Facebook because I'm
not a member.

one does not necessarily need to be a facebook member to see photos on
facebook.

I think (though I'm not certain at the
moment) that Flickr is one of the sites that doesn't
work unless script is enabled in the browser, which I
don't do except in special cases where it's *really*
necessary.

a lot of sites won't work with javascript off.

Photobucket is another one I can't see.

your loss.

I expect most people using Flickr don't care and/or
don't understand about script.

or they just want the majority of sites to work.

And I expect you don't
care whether I can see your photos. That's fine,
but such limitations are something to be aware of.
There was a case just a few days ago where someone
shared a Facebook link, completely unaware that even
most Facebook members couldn't access it!

what link was that? or is this another one of your made up stories?

direct facebook links work without an account at all, nevermind
facebook members.

Like anything online, what you see is not necessarily
the same thing everyone else sees.

nonsense.