Update TikTok Trackers Policy

[OTA-Bot]

🔎 Inspect this declaration update suggestion

Bots should take care of checking the formatting and the validity of the declaration. As a human reviewer, you should check:

• Selectors are:
  • stable: as much as possible, the CSS selectors are meaningful and specific (e.g. .tos-content rather than .ab23 .cK_drop > div).
  • simple: the CSS selectors do not have unnecessary specificity (e.g. if there is an ID, do not add a class or a tag).
• Generated version is:
  • relevant: it is not just a series of links, for example.
  • readable: it is complete and not mangled.
  • clean: it does not contain navigation links, unnecessary images, or extra content.
• validUntil date is correctly input in the history file. To get that date, you can use the following method. In all cases where a date is to be obtained from the GitHub user interface, you can obtain the exact datetime by hovering your cursor over the date or using the developer tools to copy its datetime attribute.
  1. Find the date at which the problem was first encountered:
  • If there is one, find the first date at which an issue was opened claiming that the terms can not be tracked anymore.
  • If there is no issue, or if the version is wrong even though the terms can be extracted, find the first version with wrong data and obtain its date.
  • If the document can not be fetched anymore, find the latest snapshot.
  2. Find the most recent snapshot that is strictly anterior to this date from the snapshots database.
  3. Set the creation date of this snapshot as the validUntil date in the history file.

---

Thanks to your work and attention, Open Terms Archive will ensure that high quality data is available for all reusers, enabling them to do their part in shifting the balance of power towards end users and regulators instead of spending time collecting and cleaning documents 💪

---

This update suggestion has been created through the undefined, which enables graphical declaration of documents. You can load it on your local instance if you have one set up.

[OTA-Bot]

🔎 Inspect the updated declaration suggestion

A new suggestion has been made to update this declaration, voiding the previous ones. As a human reviewer, here are the things you should check:

• Selectors are:
  • stable: as much as possible, the CSS selectors are meaningful and specific (e.g. .tos-content rather than .ab23 .cK_drop > div).
  • simple: the CSS selectors do not have unnecessary specificity (e.g. if there is an ID, do not add a class or a tag).
• Generated version is:
  • relevant: it is not just a series of links, for example.
  • readable: it is complete and not mangled.
  • clean: it does not contain navigation links, unnecessary images, or extra content.
• validUntil date is correctly input in the history file. To get that date, you can use the following method. In all cases where a date is to be obtained from the GitHub user interface, you can obtain the exact datetime by hovering your cursor over the date or using the developer tools to copy its datetime attribute.
  1. Find the date at which the problem was first encountered:
  • If there is one, find the first date at which an issue was opened claiming that the terms can not be tracked anymore.
  • If there is no issue, or if the version is wrong even though the terms can be extracted, find the first version with wrong data and obtain its date.
  • If the document can not be fetched anymore, find the latest snapshot.
  2. Find the most recent snapshot that is strictly anterior to this date from the snapshots database.
  3. Set the creation date of this snapshot as the validUntil date in the history file.

---

This suggestion has been created through the undefined, which enables graphical declaration of documents. You can load it on your local instance if you have one set up.

[Cli4d]

Thank you for making this contribution. I have reviewed it and it looks good to me ✅ . I will proceed to merge it

Thank you

[Cli4d]

It is also important to note that the link validation error that came up in the checks was resolved by executing page scripts. I struggled to resolve it for a while before this worked