Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The European Union versus the Internet

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 211 posts

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#161

Post by joe463369 »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #44
ktosobcy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perception and view of the US and it's culture also slightly shifted after GDPR came into spotlight (same conclusions as yours). Just the other day I ended up in a discussion with a US citizen (it started completely harmless and away from culture/politics) and ended up in the same corner: "EU is bad because it limits your freedom, US is great because it gives you freedom". The problem is - the argument (my underst…

Idk how you can argue the EU values people over corporate interest while this copyright law is on it's way to being passed. Here's one of the many articles about what's wrong with it. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal...

I find that article uncompelling. Cory Doctorow makes some pretty bold statements that appear to be at odds with the directive as I read it. Some of it feels like wilful misinterpretation.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#162

Post by cortesoft »

Nursie wrote: post #77
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and to deliberately misunderstand that a maximum penalty wasn't going to be the always penalty. This is the only way to view penalties like this that don't have clearly defined criteria. It's all up to a judge, and when so much is at risk, a company will assume the worse.

A very American view! This just sort of proves the point the poster was making. People here don't assume that the worst case is going to happen. Most sorts of these laws so far result in initial action taken to help (or force) the company to comply. Fines are usually only considered for those who repeatedly refuse to come into line. My view of the US is that there are many more aggressive public prosecutors who will…

It isn't about assuming that the worst will always happen, it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen.

How is that a bad thing to do? Pretending that the worst result couldn't happen is just delusional - it is like people who don't wear seat belts or helmets, or don't buy insurance. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you should ignore the risk, especially when the consequences of the unlikely even are so high.

Yes, the maximum penalty is probably pretty unlikely; on the other hand, if you GOT the maximum penalty, it might be a death sentence for your company. When the stakes are that high, you can't just ignore the risk.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#163

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tensor wrote: post #111
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIUI the "allow being tracked to gain access" is unlawful.

Is it ok to say "you get a discount if you allow being tracked"? As a practical matter, these places need to earn money to exist, so either you get served ads or you pay directly. It's highly unreasonable to expect free service.

You can serve ads without unsolicited harvesting of PII.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#164

Post by joe463369 »

plandis wrote: post #30
tw1010 wrote: post #16

It's super interesting to watch the reaction of the US blogosphere to EU laws. I feel like I'm learning a lot about US culture just by observing the general attitude that seems to be coalescing against things like GDPR. I used to think that I'd been pretty well indoctrinated into the US value system, despite being born in the EU, just by virtue of having most of my influences (movies, the internet) having come from t…

In my mind the difference is that: * In the US: Don’t use social media if you don’t want to be tracked, it’s your choice. * In the EU: We cannot compete against big US companies so we will pass laws that are popular with entitled people to weaken them in the name of social benefits. Win-win for politicians.

One of the criticisms of this directive is that only YouTube et al can afford to comply. If that's true, surely the big US companies will be delighted?

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#165

Post by nybble41 »

FactolSarin wrote: post #131
nybble41 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... and those countries have a right to implement those decisions for their people on the Internet ... No, they do not. One's natural rights do not disappear just because one happens to be living under a regime which fails to acknowledge them. When an American talks about the freedom of speech, they're talking about a right shared by every human being on this planet, not just the ones who happen to live in the USA.…

It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data that shows the American interpretation of freedom of speech is correct. Even Americans draw the line somewhere. For instance, the old "shouting fire in a theater." bit. Or, say, planning a murder. Other people decide to draw the line different places. Sorry, but claiming the American legal interpretation is "objective fact" and, say, the German one is wro…

> It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data...

You're looking in the wrong place. It is objective precisely because it comes from logic, not experiment. The question is not "which system better optimizes for a certain set of subjective preferences" but rather "does this act inherently justify this response". That is true only if the response is proportional—similar to the original act both qualitatively and quantitative—because the perpetrator of the original act cannot then argue that their action was right and proper while simultaneously claiming that the same action is wrong when someone else does it to them. Either they allow that the response is acceptable, or they admit that they were wrong to behave as they did. However, you cannot make that argument if the response is non-proportional, such as the case when responding to speech with force.

> Sorry, but claiming the American legal interpretation is "objective fact"...

I'm not making any claims about the American legal interpretation, but rather the principles of natural law which underpin the best parts of it. There is still a lot which the American legal system gets wrong on that score, including that travesty of a ruling made under duress to justify suppressing political protest against the draft (the infamous "shouting fire in a theater" case).

> Or, say, planning a murder.

The problem with that is not the planning, but rather the intent to actually murder someone, which is obviously not merely a matter of speech. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with planning a murder, per se; mystery-novel authors do it all the time. If you lead people to reasonably believe that you actually intend to commit the murder, however, then you shouldn't be surprised if they respond accordingly in self-defense against an imminent threat of irreversible harm.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#166

Post by AdamM12 »

craftyguy wrote: post #149
AdamM12 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't run ads to generate revenue. Most content sites do.

There are ads on HN (the "xyz is hiring", and I suspect a non-zero number of articles posted/promoted to the front page are paid ads made to look like content.

Ok so how's that work for a news site? Don't they need some kind of tracking to get relevant info on what their users are interested in?

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#167

Post by notdonspaulding »

cortesoft wrote: post #156
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to guess you're not from Europe based on that definition? The EU constrains companies to the benefit of individuals. It's not stopping people from hurting themselves, it's stopping them from being hurt by companies who have phenomenal power over us, more power in some ways than states themselves have.

The freedom to conduct business is one of the core freedoms that Americans value. When Americans talk about freedom, they are including the freedom to form a business and create whatever business arrangements you want. To American values, restrictions on how you do business are as infringing as restrictions on individual rights.

This is an excellent point.

Along that same line of thinking, I think another historical American value/attitude is that a business is a person. More precisely, businesses only exist because individual people decide to take risks with their lives in the pursuit of whatever values they hold. Since they hold the risk privately, they get to hold the rewards privately.

That many people who take such risks value financial profit may be a concern to some, but is a non-concern to society as long as the marketplace is free of coercion.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#168

Post by fatrachet »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #95
Joeri wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, in Europe there is a bigger pressure to value people/individuals over company/corporate interest and that's seems like the crux of the difference. I think it’s more about two different definitions of freedom. The U.S. defines it as the freedom to choose, where harmful outcomes are an accident of letting people freely choose. The E.U. sees it more as the freedom to live, where choices that harm quality of…

I'm going to guess you're not from Europe based on that definition? The EU constrains companies to the benefit of individuals. It's not stopping people from hurting themselves, it's stopping them from being hurt by companies who have phenomenal power over us, more power in some ways than states themselves have.

This proposed copyright law is about as far from benefitting individuals instead of companies as you can get.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#170

Post by craftyguy »

AdamM12 wrote: post #166
craftyguy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ads on HN (the "xyz is hiring", and I suspect a non-zero number of articles posted/promoted to the front page are paid ads made to look like content.

Ok so how's that work for a news site? Don't they need some kind of tracking to get relevant info on what their users are interested in?

You can gauge user interest by, for example, counting page views. You don't need to fingerprint users, create a catalog of all articles they view, try to guess their interest in certain topics using "AI", and do all the other absurdity that they think they "need" to do now.
Post reply on HN