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

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#171

Post by ergothus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124
ergothus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful about assuming too much consistency in the US populace. I'm born-and-raised US, and our attitudes can be very hard to describe. We'll hate "Obamacare" but actually support all the individual parts. We'll complain about govt spending then complain when the govt doesn't function. We'll complain that people don't trust science about global warming but avoid vaccines and expect GMOs to actually mutate us. We'l…

> Hard to mix diversity with unity. It's actually not that hard. You can have a mexican restaurant, hibachi restaurant, cajun restaurant and winery all in the same city and patronize a different one each day. That's the benefit of diversity. What doing it wrong looks like is accusing the mexican restaurant of a moral failing because their staff is mostly latino, or the winery because their staff is mostly English or…

Please don't think I'm dissing diversity - I'm all for it.

> And that's also why you see people on both sides of any given issue

Often that's a great thing. Sometimes it's not. That was the point I was making.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#172

Post by Nursie »

cortesoft wrote: post #162
Nursie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

> it is just NOT assuming that the worst WON'T happen.

But it won't. You attempt to comply with the rules, show good faith and you won't be in danger.

It's not a real risk.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#173

Post by AdamM12 »

craftyguy wrote: post #170
AdamM12 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMO you could just go to another site that doesn't. To each their own.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#174

Post by Bjartr »

tensor wrote: post #160
Bjartr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the GDPR says "good riddance to you if you can only make money by tracking people without the tracking itself being part of your value to them". Not all business models deserve to succeed.

What? You can make money by charging people for it. Don't want to pay for newspapers for example? Without ads you can either pay up directly or not enjoy the publication. I don't understand where this entitlement for free stuff comes from.

I don't know why you think I was advocating for free stuff. I was not. I'm happy to pay for content I want. It's what time companies should be doing instead of not charging, tracking invasively, and selling user data. If you can convince people to pay for your content then the market is telling you you don't have a viable business.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#175

Post by bulatb »

mariushn wrote: post #123
Tharkun wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the GDPR "success story" part of your comment. So far it's backfired entirely. The goal was to provide users with more control, and (from the standpoint of such a user) to reduce relentless personal data harvesting. That hasn't happened. What's happened is more annoying "we use cookies and track you"-banners all over the internet. As a user who doesn't use cookies, these damned things won't even go aw…

Same for offline businesses. Go to a bank, they'll ask your consent for handling personal data ("It's a GDPR law"). If you don't want to sign, they won't do business with you. No bank will. So, it's just one more paper to sign, and doesn't help the actual consumer. I would have expected more of "Don't send me any promotional/survey questions unless I opt in", or "Never share my data with 3rd parties, period".

> If you don't want to sign, they won't do business with you.

That's illegal. Consent to processing can not be a prerequisite for service. [0] (Otherwise GDPR would have no power, even in theory.)

If the processing is so important that service cannot be provided without it, or wouldn't be legal to offer, it's covered under Art. 6(1)(b), (c), or (f): performance of a contract, legal obligation, or legitimate interest of the business. Consent—Art. 6(1)(a)—is what you use when you just want the data but don't actually require it to offer the service.

Saying "Sign consent or go away" is saying "We could serve you without this, but we want it, so we're lying and saying we can't."

It seems like almost everyone has chosen this weird malicious non-compliance (maximum annoyance but without the compliance) as their GDPR strategy.

Maybe lawyers found a way to claim that left is right and up is down.

[0] Art. 7(4): https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#176

Post by joe463369 »

Joeri wrote: post #40
digikata wrote: post #25

So there's a lot of coverage about the EU parliament process, but where did the drive for this copyright directive come from? There seems to very little coverage on how this directive came about. Whose interests are being represented by these changes?

Economic interests. EU governments are seeing the majority of digital revenues carted off to american coffers and want a bigger slice to remain in europe to bolster its lagging economy.

This directive has been simultaneously criticised for being both a) an outrageous cash grab from the EU, aimed at making money from Google et al and b) an incompetent "poorly drafted" piece of legislation that stops anyone competing with YouTube, hence ensuring their monopoly in the lucrative "boring videos" market.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#177

Post by odessacubbage »

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…

in claiming that our rights are self evident, we are very much saying that everyone else is wrong.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#178

Post by ahartmetz »

emilfihlman wrote: post #55
davidhyde wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree with this. GDPR is a shining beacon of success and it blows my mind that it came from the same clowns that made the cookie law. They covered my internet with cookie banner graffiti and now they want to mess with something as fundamental as a hyperlink.

GDPR is absolutely not the shining beacon of success. Let's review at some glaring, obvious and 100%-lets-make-this-law-shite points: 1. Application and enforcement: GDPR is 100% arbitrarily enforced, it is a "trust us, we could do no harm, trust us" law, that is extremely well suited to adding other such "trust us" laws. 2. Absolutely ridiculous overreach: on a technical level, GDPR is braindead. It applies ridiculo…

1. OK, so all laws that aren't consistently enforced are useless. What about copyright?

2. "For no purpose" - you know the purpose, you just pretend it has none because you don't like it.

3. No, that's explicitly forbidden.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#179

Post by FactolSarin »

Nasrudith wrote: post #154
FactolSarin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally I think the crazy notion is that governments have rights. They are an embodiment of power. They need and have limits not rights. If the people stop the government from having an army - circumstances of the practicality of doing so aside its rights haven't been violated. It doesn't have any and the notion they do is absurd. Even the transience property of personhood for corporations (regardless of one's opi…

Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable.

Re: The European Union versus the Internet

#180

Post by droithomme »

joshuakarjala wrote: post #65
emilfihlman wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is absolutely not the shining beacon of success. Let's review at some glaring, obvious and 100%-lets-make-this-law-shite points: 1. Application and enforcement: GDPR is 100% arbitrarily enforced, it is a "trust us, we could do no harm, trust us" law, that is extremely well suited to adding other such "trust us" laws. 2. Absolutely ridiculous overreach: on a technical level, GDPR is braindead. It applies ridiculo…

3. No, you cannot serve any EU customers if there is not option to "opt out" of any unnecessary processing

> No, you cannot serve any EU customers if there is not option to "opt out"

Josh buddy. By chance, have you spent any time at all on the internet using so-called "GDPR compliant" sites?

Post reply on HN