301–310 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that consent is not sufficient. In addition, data collection must directly serve a legitimate business purpose. Though I guess Facebook has lawyers willing to argue that anything they do serves their core business.
My reading of it was that you need either consent or a legitimate business purpose, not both.[0] [0]: Article 6(1), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. > P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :) Why?
> GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. > Why? I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then obviously CNN should never write an article again and isn't a profitable business... That is complete and utter nonsense. Linking itself adds value - see the uproar with Facebook getting rid of news in the feed. If the publishers genuinely felt as you do, they would simply prevent content being linked to by Google News/etc. Instead they want to demand payment for it, and force the behavior instead of letting…
If a single publisher chooses to do that, they only hurt themselves, Google is far too big. If it's forced for all publishers, it might actually have an effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. > P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :) Why?
Because her entire “philosophy” is egotistical selfishness, in her own words. So the opposite of good and profoundly ignorant. No point in rehashing 1000 year old debates that were settled long ago on this type of behavior.
You clearly know nothing about Rand's philosophy. You would do yourself a favor to correct that error. Even if you ultimately disagree with her, she has very many intelligent things to say and, if you give her a chance, she will challenge many of your preconceptions about morality, ethics, and their postcursors of economics and politics, and raise the level of your discourse significantly.
Technically, a law like this is prone to be abused for censorship purposes. Whether this “dual use” is intended or not by parliamentarian voters, is obviously unclear. To make it even worse, such laws don’t “outlaw” some behaviour, but put a high risk on it through civil law. So, it helps multinationals (and a possible malevolent regime) and hurts small companies as well as citizens. To me, it’s hard to believe this…
I want to say, I heard all this talk of Ayn Rand as some kind of evil bogeyman, and then I listened to her speak on YouTube. She grew up in a horrible communist dictatorship, and then found refuge in the US. She spoke about how unfair governments can be, and spoke out against forced control of the people. I found her to be super reasonable! She only represents one persons view and I feel that libertarians often fail…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because her entire “philosophy” is egotistical selfishness, in her own words. So the opposite of good and profoundly ignorant. No point in rehashing 1000 year old debates that were settled long ago on this type of behavior.
This comment is profoundly ignorant. You're dismissing her philosophy because of two descriptive words (and not even the best two, which would probably be "rational selfishness"), which you have decided are the "opposite of good" simply because history says they are? That's just an appeal to tradition: plenty of people have been wrong about plenty of things throughout history, especially in the areas of morality and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. > Why? I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
> The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so. > I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian. This might be t…
True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to.
And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is profoundly ignorant. You're dismissing her philosophy because of two descriptive words (and not even the best two, which would probably be "rational selfishness"), which you have decided are the "opposite of good" simply because history says they are? That's just an appeal to tradition: plenty of people have been wrong about plenty of things throughout history, especially in the areas of morality and…
Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.
...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to say, I heard all this talk of Ayn Rand as some kind of evil bogeyman, and then I listened to her speak on YouTube. She grew up in a horrible communist dictatorship, and then found refuge in the US. She spoke about how unfair governments can be, and spoke out against forced control of the people. I found her to be super reasonable! She only represents one persons view and I feel that libertarians often fail…
She was on welfare in America. She wasn’t even interested in trying her philosophy out on her self. Why should I try it out?
> Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others — the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
TL;DR: people might as well get back some of the money the government collected from them.
1. https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-...