51–60 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction.
> EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction. Sorry if this is obvious. I haven't been following the details of this. Does that mean there is no protection for EU citizens while they are outside the EU?
def GDPR_applies(company, person):
if in_EU(person):
return True
if in_EU(company):
return True
return False
You can read the actual text of the territorial scope rule here [1].
Edit: slightly less rough, but still quite rough:
def GDPR_applies(company, person):
if in_EU(company):
return True;
if in_EU(person):
if offering_goods_services_in_EU(company, person):
return True
if monitoring_behavior_in_EU(company, person):
return True
return False
It would be absurd for Facebook, a US company, to adopt as a global standard a framework that's entirely decided and enforced by the EU. Perhaps a global data protection framework can largely conform to GDPR, but it clearly has to be decided in the US.
In the automotive industry, California emissions and efficiency standards become the defacto standards in the US mainly because it wouldn’t make economic sense to maintain a California model and a more polluting model. Also, better fuel efficiency is generally seen as a good thing by consumers.
EU has a population of 510m. FB is blemished by privacy concerns. If Facebook makes a GDPR compliant version – it wouldn’t be unreasonable of them to roll that same version out to the rest of the world.
I think in the opposit we should urge US companies to fight against GDPR. Local foreign laws shouldn’t dictate how our companies should behave. Why not respecting speech laws in China or in Russia if we follow this precedent?
It would be absurd for Facebook, a US company, to adopt as a global standard a framework that's entirely decided and enforced by the EU. Perhaps a global data protection framework can largely conform to GDPR, but it clearly has to be decided in the US.
It would be absurd if they could be _forced_ to globally adopt an EU regulation, but I think not as much if they _do_ globally adopt this EU regulation, for two reasons: 1. There might be significant internal hassle involved in working with more than one standard of integrity within a single company dealing with integrity as its currency and user base as pillars. It may be easier for them to just use a common one eve…
The GDPR has been on the table since 2012. That's a very loose coincidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction.
> EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction. Sorry if this is obvious. I haven't been following the details of this. Does that mean there is no protection for EU citizens while they are outside the EU?
- The data is processed by a company established in the EU (it does not matter where the person / “data subject” is).
- The person is in the EU (whether or not they are an EU national).
“Data subjects” are not protected outside the EU against companies established outside the EU.
From https://cybercounsel.co.uk/data-subjects/ under “Territorial expansion and applicability of EU law”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's as absurd as Google/Facebook/et al. adopting US cultural norms as global standard of banning ads, YouTube content, social media content and everything else for the whole world. Meaning: not absurd at all.
While I don't agree with some of Google/Facebook/et al. standards, I think that's not a fair comparison, since they are US based companies following US cultural norms, not EU based companies following US cultural norms.
Is anyone talking about the harmful effects on startup companies that may want to create new social platforms to compete against the incumbent players? All the talk about regulating facebook, twitter, etc are actually great for those companies because they can afford compliance. But it raises the bar of entry so high that new companies wouldn't be able to compete since with limited resources they wouldn't be able to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
I'm curious. Can you give an example of where this would infringe on the 1st amendment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes those articles are correct, but do you think that's what most people would think when they read it? Most likely the articles on suspicion for murder are ranked top in the search results while the articles about being cleared are hard to find. Many people tend to be judgemental, or at least err on the side of caution. In this case, potential employers could feel "where there is smoke, there is fire" and would rath…
No. Google should rank the "Suspect found NOT GUILTY of murder" as the top, most relevant page, because that is truly the most relevant. If Google refuses to rank this the top, it's out of sheer laziness, just like how they refused to fix the subversive content in Youtube Kids "because algorithms". If they did this in the first place, I think most people wouldn't care so much.
Even if it's ranked high, a lot of readers would still end up with this feeling that "yeah the latest news article say that but MAYBE that guy DID do something wrong... let's not hire him just to be sure", i.e. "where there is smoke there is fire".
I just gave you a practical example about the plastic surgery meme. News articles about how the woman was ruined rank nowhere near as high as the meme itself.