71–80 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did that democracy work with articles 11 and 13? The European Union is the antithesis of democracy. If it wasn't, those directives would never have passed.
Democracy does not mean that every decision is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you don’t but can you speak for everyone? The poster seemed to think that was undesirable.
We, the people of the EU, have democratically decided that we don't want them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One nasty side effect is some large organisations are shutting out Europe. I can no longer access severs popular US based sites and instead get messages about the content not being available in your region. (Most recently: latimes.con and fox8.com)
That's also fine - was their content worth your privacy? If they can't be GDPR compliant we don't want them.
Besides, if they didn’t block me, I can always ensure my privacy to a reasonable degree by using private browsing mode on my browser. That requires very little effort, unlike what I would have to do now — use some VPN provider who quite likely would be monitoring ALL my data not just to that site.
Considering IP-address is considered personal information it sounds like this study is based on data that was illegally collected according to GDPR.
The author of this article didn't bother to read even a summary of the GDPR law. It doesn't matter what the user consents to, you cannot use their personal data ad hoc. You need to justify its collection, storage and transfer to the regulator, not the user. This is in contrast to the ill thought out cookie law where websites could get away with it by irritating consent banners. Sort of like, but not exactly the same…
> It doesn't matter what the user consents to, you cannot use their personal data ad hoc. You need to justify its collection, storage and transfer to the regulator, not the user. I think one of the points is that there are very few companies that have the financial resources to do that, one of those companies that can afford it being Google. The next retort is "but then those companies should stop using trackers all-…
Yes, why do they have to track their users? Why don't use real targeted advertisement instead? If I go to a car forum, car related ads would be relevant for me. Using ML, tracking and profiling to give me ads for the fridge I did buy last week is not relevant
The bigger players win.
since when is this a bad thing? i want my page less bloated with 100 trackers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't matter what the user consents to, you cannot use their personal data ad hoc. You need to justify its collection, storage and transfer to the regulator, not the user. I think one of the points is that there are very few companies that have the financial resources to do that, one of those companies that can afford it being Google. The next retort is "but then those companies should stop using trackers all-…
>but then those companies should stop using trackers all-together Yes, why do they have to track their users? Why don't use real targeted advertisement instead? If I go to a car forum, car related ads would be relevant for me. Using ML, tracking and profiling to give me ads for the fridge I did buy last week is not relevant
Come on, that's not what they are trying to do and you know it. There's so many valid arguments you could make, why use a strawman?
But the answer to your first question, is because ads targeted to users pay more, get more clicks, and overall perform better than those that are targeted to the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they give up specifically because of GDPR? It just makes no sense, there's thousands of regulations already on all the parts of the day-to-day life of running a business, I wonder how they planned to manage the rest of them.
Seriously. The Data Protection Directive alone already included most of the GDPR.