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

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#101

Post by dpkonofa »

tboyd47 wrote: post #77
kaolti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling this is much more prevalent than any of us realize. Would explain why most comments seem ridiculous.

You mean how there are somehow always commenters in every topic ready to leap to the defense of China and major US tech companies?

Meh. I would probably be considered (and have been called) a shill for Apple because I tend to defend them way more than most and it's very popular in tech communities to host anti-Apple circlejerks. I have yet to be paid by them for any of my pro-Apple posts.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#102

Post by inlined »

mamon wrote: post #35
sokoloff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In context, "relatively bigger" would mean something like a progressive tax bracket. $20MM up to $500MM rev, 4% up to $1BB rev, 5% up to $2BB rev, 6% up to $5BB rev, etc... A straight 4% would be absolutely bigger, but relatively the same (once beyond $500M).

I think it's not about "income brackets", it is about profit margins which can vary a lot between industries. 4% of revenue is enough to bankrupt traditional business, like Wallmart with profit margins of 2,48%. Google is a low-cost business, with profit margin of 25%, so even the maximum GDPR fine is something they can just write off.

So just make the fine a portion of profit? Maybe a three layer system that takes into account flat euro rate, a percent of revenue, or a bigger percent of profit; whichever is highest.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#103

Post by microtonal »

whatshisface wrote: post #82
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should their point of view just not be heard then, in such discussions?

Is it really a point of view, or is it a carefully engineered sequence of words designed to program people with certain opinions? There are lots of ways to "program" people that bypass their rational mind, and creating a false sense of social consensus is one of them.

Also, I noticed that some submissions unfavorable to Google seem to be flagged heavily (at least, they were posted more recently and had more upvotes, than higher-ranking submissions).

Of course, posting and flagging may not be intentional policy of Google, but also the work of individual Google employees.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#104

Post by criddell »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #76
NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

Should their point of view just not be heard then, in such discussions?

I would love it for companies to jump into these conversations and defend or explain what's going on. It's less interesting for them to speak through a secret proxy.

That said, I don't think there are nearly as many shills as some people think nor do I think they are very effective.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#105

Post by kaibee »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #76
NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

Should their point of view just not be heard then, in such discussions?

Hi kspacewalk2,

I'm John and I have views on privacy that are completely genuine and happen to align with what benefits the corporation(s) that my company, TotallyLegitimateComments LLC, contracts for. I believe advertisement is a force for good in the world and can bring together people and products that enrich their lives while creating value for shareholders! While I'd love to share what wonderful businesses my company works with, various privacy agreements prevent us from doing so. However, I can tell you that they all appreciate the fact that you find their views important! We will continue to lobby your congressmen on your behalf to ensure that these views are reflected in the nations laws! Thanks and remember, corporations are people like you and me!

Sincerely, John

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#106

Post by derefr »

tboyd47 wrote: post #77
kaolti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling this is much more prevalent than any of us realize. Would explain why most comments seem ridiculous.

You mean how there are somehow always commenters in every topic ready to leap to the defense of China and major US tech companies?

I would guess that those are, more often than not, not paid shills but rather just people who like taking devil’s-advocate sides in arguments “for fun”, i.e. just for the challenge of seeing if they can construct a valid rebuttal to a comment. (I say this because I believe I’ve done this myself more than once, and I know my personality-type isn’t uncommon on HN.)

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#107

Post by inlined »

inlined wrote: post #55
docker_up wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The executives should face jail time. That would certainly light a fire under Google's ass to finally "do no evil".

Sadly mid-level employees would probably be the ones going to jail. The tech lead and/or PM sign off on compliance. I used to joke that one of my responsibilities was to put my freedom at stake. None of my products violate GDPR in any way I could conceive, but I’d hate to be handed down a mandate to do so. Both not accepting a project and not signing off on it are pretty bold moves.

Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. I’m a professional who had signed off on legal documents. Why would the buck not stop at me? That’s the way it works in architecture and other professions.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#108

Post by elorant »

cryoshon wrote: post #27
Barrin92 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has been fined a 5 billion dollar fine already last year, that claim simply isn't true. But I agree with the implicit demand, they clearly haven't gotten the message. The EU should slap them with billion dollar fines again until they learn their lesson.

5 billion is peanuts to google. if the fine is low enough that it can be written off as a cost of business, it's too low. effective fines devastate profit margins rather than merely crimping them.

It's not peanuts. Fines are meant as a warning. You keep ignoring them eventually they'll hit you with something that will really hurt.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#109

Post by raxxorrax »

zdw wrote: post #17
rvz wrote: post #8

It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. Then the Go modules proxy issue around the Go Programming language that raised suspicions about tracking usage statistics around downloading modules turned on by default without any consent and now this. I think there are some folks at Google who ha…

The Go module hash checking seems to be more about avoiding the problems encountered by other language repos integrity and versioning issues ( cough NPM), and in terms of tracking it seems about as invasive as Debian's popcon. Enabled by default can and should be the default for security-related features. I tend to agree about the rest of the creepiness, especially anything personally behavioral.

> Enabled by default can and should be the default for security-related features.

Not since Google uses the argument of increased security to justify data collection for quite some time in the interest of itself.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#110

Post by hexadec »

intopieces wrote: post #93
hexadec wrote: post #5

This some great work on tracking down all of these measures to track users. I really hope we get to the point where dumb ads rules the web once more. Hopefully this results in more than a slap on the wrist, but I doubt it.

Why should ads rule the web at all? Surely the cleverest engineers to walk the planet can come up with a new way of making money that doesn’t involve psychological manipulation.

I agree with you in theory, but until we can figure out micro-transactional payments that work globally it seems ads are good stepping stone. People want to get paid for work, some users are willing to pay (cash) some with attention to ads. We should not give up our privacy or anonymity for this attention though.
Post reply on HN