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

Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 506 posts

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#311

Post by bumblebritches5 »

wolco2 wrote: post #301
rsync wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free exchange among peoples is alive and well. It is easier today to make a website and share anything than it has ever been in the history of civilization." This has always been my own reaction to pronouncements that the Internet as we knew it is dead, or over. I'm usually quite optimistic about our ability to freely (and usually without monetary cost) create and share, globally. However, the closure of Nekochan (a…

For all of the reasons free exchange may be happening less so now GDPR is the least of worrying issue facing website owners.

That can't be true based on the number of banners you get from websites about it.

I'm an American, idgaf about that law, and yet i still see it everywhere

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#312

Post by avianlyric »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #293
jacquesm wrote: post #220

This won't fly, for the simple reason that the ICO will have the same set of rules regarding data privacy that the EU has right now. They may change it, but that's the starting position. Facebook is not going to like the kind of fines that the ICO can throw at them.

The ICO can fine, but almost certainly won't. It's a failed regulator.

> It's a failed regulator.

Not sure I would go this far, but I do agree with this

> The ICO can fine, but almost certainly won't

But only because one the U.K. leaves the EU, the ICO will struggle to actually enforce its fines when all of the companies involved are notional operating in the EU with little direct presence in the U.K.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#313

Post by tshaddox »

lmm wrote: post #266
cortesoft wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you have been able to get people to see your great unique website 20 years ago? I don't remember it being easy to get a large audience at any point in the internet's history.

You could join a webring, or link to related people and ask them to link back. Given that there was no financial incentive to get traffic (if anything the opposite), there weren't so many pages with duplicate content (or no actual content at all) competing for attention.

There were are also far fewer person-minutes in front of an Internet-connected screen.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#314

Post by sitkack »

fastball wrote: post #118
furyg3 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this. If the freedoms outlined in the constitution are universal and inalienable, shouldn't the US also apply them, well, universally? Like do you believe in them or not?

The purpose of the US was to protect these rights for their own citizens / residents. Protecting those rights for the entire world is a bit out-of-scope.

The constitution applies to the US government in how it interacts with all people. Only where necessary is there an 'if citizen' clause.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#315

Post by goodpoint »

ben_w wrote: post #240
alisonkisk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you imagining that globalization will somehow create peace and prosperity between Chinese, Arabs, Jews, USAmericans, billionaires, cocoa growing child slaves, and the rest?

Looking at the statistics, it’s certainly more plausible than the idea it might be making those things worse. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190111-seven-reasons-wh...

...until you consider the looming environmental collapse.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#316

Post by tshaddox »

ricardo81 wrote: post #248
cortesoft wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you have been able to get people to see your great unique website 20 years ago? I don't remember it being easy to get a large audience at any point in the internet's history.

You build a site with unique content, decent layout, design. Email other website owners "Hi, I think this would be would be a decent resource for your 'other resources' page / your visitors might like this". (as opposed to ... what other means do you discover new content?) Only, no one does link pages anymore, because they're fearful of platform algos deciding that their inbound/outbound link profile is toxic. What I…

I think what you're missing here is simply how much larger the Internet is now than it was in the romanticized past. If there was ever a time where you could reliably establish a meaningful distribution platform by personally emailing individual webmasters, surely it was a time where there was an extremely small number of regular web visitors. In fact, I would be willing to bet that, right now, the world of independent webmasters using traditional hyperlinks and eschewing the current megaplatforms is vastly larger than it was in the time you're recalling. Which is to say, you can probably reach a larger audience today using those distribution techniques than you could in the time you're recalling. You just will obviously have a much much smaller portion of today's web visitors.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#318

Post by ricardo81 »

tshaddox wrote: post #316
ricardo81 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build a site with unique content, decent layout, design. Email other website owners "Hi, I think this would be would be a decent resource for your 'other resources' page / your visitors might like this". (as opposed to ... what other means do you discover new content?) Only, no one does link pages anymore, because they're fearful of platform algos deciding that their inbound/outbound link profile is toxic. What I…

I think what you're missing here is simply how much larger the Internet is now than it was in the romanticized past. If there was ever a time where you could reliably establish a meaningful distribution platform by personally emailing individual webmasters, surely it was a time where there was an extremely small number of regular web visitors. In fact, I would be willing to bet that, right now, the world of independe…

I'm not buying either of the points, about romanticising or the portion.

What means to do we have of discovering new content, right now. All the eyeball time on social media, all the searches done for the most part on Google.

You've basically two methods of discovering new things when considering the sum time of everyone who might recommend something they've seen.

That's not romantic at all to me!

FWIW I don't think the link hunting of 20 years ago was systematically better, but it was definitely more individually minded, problem is it's been systematically spammed/undermined as well as the SEO issues I've mentioned so people are generally going to ignore 'link suggestions'

My main point is, diversify away from one or two central platforms. The issue is their consensus of what should and shouldn't be seen and the size of the market behind this.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#319

Post by harry8 »

avianlyric wrote: post #160
harry8 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "Regulatory Capture" and is a form of corruption. It is not /why/ regulation exists any more than the murder of Mr Floyd is why police exist. Regulatory capture is utterly rampant right now and a huge threat to democracy. This is true regardless of one's personal politics or beliefs about big vs small government or political party of preference. It's a cancer and more dangerous than people think.

> Regulatory capture is utterly rampant right now and a huge threat to democracy. Rampant in the US. The EU has managed to avoid the worst of it so far.

Please look a little harder.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#320

Post by mellosouls »

ryanSrich wrote: post #317

I don’t understand this, but maybe I missed it in the article. How can FB avoid GDPR simply by moving offices? The rules apply to any business anywhere so long as they serve EU users. What am I not getting here?

Brexit.

British users are no longer subject to EU protection come January 1st and we can now be thrown to the wolves, courtesy the wisdom of our Brexiteer chums.

Post reply on HN