171–180 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't respect your users' privacy you don't deserve to do business in the EU. So you're going to make the decision of what constitutes "respecting my privacy" for every single person in the EU?
Me? No. That's what the legislation does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey zulrah, we are working on GDPR and plan to have the service available in the EU as soon as possible. Hope to have you back on Instapaper when we become available in the EU again. Really sorry for the inconvenience.
I don't think you can piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience". And for no good reason. Just assume the improbable cost of some litigation as a company, like tens of thousands of others (including much bigger and much smaller than yours) did, put up a message to European customers and have them click and proceed as usual to the service. Or, you know, use the headstart of more than…
I thought Instapaper was a free service that Pinterest bought mainly for it's article parsing technology? As an analogy FB's customers are advertisers and media agencies who pay to keep the lights on as is Pinterest's, users are not the customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I removed all my apps from the EU, and I will no longer publish any future apps there unless they become wildly successful in another country first. My apps are tiny, free, and just not worth the hassle of figuring out what GDPR compliance is (even though they are likely GDPR compliant already since I don't store any info). I think we're going to see a lot of small indie developers just not publish to the EU until it…
I don't see why the above is downvoted. Yes, GDPR may be beneficial and all, but thinking that it does not have an associated cost of a higher barrier to entry is a bit myopic.
And if your application doesn't store data, then it's a one time cost essentially. Which is the time spent reading up on the legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, considering that GDPR has been voted two years ago and is based on 20-years-old EU privacy laws, even if it took 6 months or 2 years it still wouldn’t be a valid excuse. Also, giving a bit of detail or a minimal schedule is easier than a PR campaign. It’s called transparency, and it works even if you’re alone on a project.
Except "20-years-old EU privacy laws" didn't risk 4% of global revenue. It also didn't risk activist lawsuits. https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-... Funny thing how DailyMotion isn't getting sued, but YouTube's parent company is.
Also, nobody got sued, ignorant reporters notwithstanding. Schrems only filed complaints with the regulators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Short of selling everyone's reading habits to the lowest bidder.. what on earth needs changing? Edit: To clarify I'm not saying they do that, I just can't see what part of GDPR they're having trouble with
Perhaps that's because you are not a part of the corporation. Why would you expect to have insight into their operations?
From my point of view they store a list of URLs and provide a way to nicely view the content of those URLs. What in that could be causing 2 months of downtime to fix?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience". And for no good reason. Just assume the improbable cost of some litigation as a company, like tens of thousands of others (including much bigger and much smaller than yours) did, put up a message to European customers and have them click and proceed as usual to the service. Or, you know, use the headstart of more than…
> piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience". I thought Instapaper was a free service that Pinterest bought mainly for it's article parsing technology? As an analogy FB's customers are advertisers and media agencies who pay to keep the lights on as is Pinterest's, users are not the customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can piss on customers for 2 months and then drop a "sorry for the inconvenience". And for no good reason. Just assume the improbable cost of some litigation as a company, like tens of thousands of others (including much bigger and much smaller than yours) did, put up a message to European customers and have them click and proceed as usual to the service. Or, you know, use the headstart of more than…
I could understand the outrage if this was a service you were paying for. But this is a Free service being provided to you. Why do you believe you have the right to dictate how someone else uses their time when you're not paying for it?
So, if Gmail was closed to the free tier European users for 2 months+, they should be OK, because "they didn't pay for it"?
>But this is a Free service being provided to you. Why do you believe you have the right to dictate how someone else uses their time when you're not paying for it?
That's an argument for the 1950s economy, this is 2018. We have other models, such as ads, user profiling, even pure eyeballs as a M&A/IPO monetisation strategies. Just because the user doesn't paid doesn't mean money aren't made from the user using the service. Except if one believe they run it from the goodness of their hearts at a loss, but then they probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Not to mention that Instapaper used to actually charge too. If someone paid for the app or premium later for years, is it ok if they "make it free" and then deny access to their account for 2 months?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that I have the right to demand that someone else doesn't use their time to burglarize my house, and if they and other companies have made a side business of burglarizing peoples houses, I think it's entirely resonable to demand that they and any similar company spend time proving that they aren't planning to continue. (And yes, I realize the houses in this metaphor rarely have doors in their doorways, much…
That analogy makes no sense. The proper analogy would be: You invite a volunteer carpenter in to fix your cabinets. He asks if he can write down what cereal your family eats instead of taking payment. You say sure! (ie agree to the terms of service). New law passes. He refuses to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time because he doesn’t want to get sued for writing down the cereal names improperly. You th…
First, Instapaper is a continuous service. If you store something, you want access to it again. It's not a series of one-off, independent services.
So, no, they didn't just "refused to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time". They gave you a space to write your notes and store your links, and then they denied access to that for 2 months (and counting).
Second, you forgot the part where Instapaper had paid services for years, and that many people who are denied service today, had paid good money and stick with it. They weren't asked if they wanted it to br made free and unreliable either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This narrative has long since become tired. If you don't respect your users' privacy you don't deserve to do business in the EU. And make no mistake: whether you like it or not, that legislation - or something very like it - is going to jump the Atlantic sooner or later, so why not position yourself ahead of the curve instead of stropping off and taking your ball home? There are side-effects I don't like about GDPR,…
Cookie notifications have nothing to do with GDPR.