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

It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 192 posts

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#31

Post by MereInterest »

raverbashing wrote: post #5

I always read this as: "Our European visitors are important to us BUT vacuuming all your data and selling to multiple bidders is importanter " You wanna be obnoxious? Sure, go ahead, but I'll dislike your site more (and I have adblock so I have no qualms in accepting). Wanna pretend you're compliant by having an obvious non-compliant "solution" and think that will shield your responsibility? Now I'll just hate you an…

Exactly this. Every time I read about GDPR compliance, it feels like a very well-designed set of guidelines that are easy to follow ... IF you aren't stalking users. The complaints about it have the same tone as the Guild of Assassins complaining that laws against murder are really hard to comply with in their industry. Of course they are, and that's the point.

--------------

Hypothetical conversation with a Malicious Advertising Website:

MAW: Can I stalk my users without telling them?

GDPR: No, you must have consent to track users.

MAW: So I can assume I have consent because they're using my site?

GDPR: No, the consent must be explicit.

MAW: Got it, I'll put it somewhere in the fine print of the terms of service.

GDPR: Uninformed consent doesn't count. Fine print doesn't count as informing users.

MAW: Okay, so I'll have a banner with an obvious "accept" button and several hidden steps to opt out.

GDPR: Nope, it must be just as easy to retract permission as to grant it. If it's a single step to accept, then it must be a single step to reject.

MAW: In that case I'll have the "reject" button kick them off the site.

GDPR: Consent must be freely given, and having a service be conditional on consent is coercion. Consent to track may only be given as a gift, and not as an exchange.

MAW: WAAAH!! This is so hard!!

---------

Hypothetical conversation with a Non-Malicious Website:

NMW: I don't track any information about visitors to this site, and only serve non-targeted advertisements.

GDPR: Sounds good, go right ahead.

NMW: Say, I want to make a "To-Do List" site. Do I need to warn users that I'm going to remember the to-do items for them?

GDPR: Nope, no issue there. That's necessary for the service to function.

NMW: Huh, this is really simple.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#32

Post by vincentmarle »

I’m the opposite: I grew up in Europe but live in the States. There’s a ton of European websites and content I can’t access from here.

While this may suck for you personally I don’t think American companies (especially local news companies) should have to comply with invasive and expensive European privacy laws. Especially after forcing the entire world to adopt useless and annoying cookie walls. If you really want to access those articles you can use a VPN like the rest of the world does when they are accessing geo restricted content. GDPR has never really been a reasonable law to begin with.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#34

Post by PedroBatista »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #13
DangerousPie wrote: post #10

Maybe the cost of GDPR compliance just isn't worth the small amount of revenue that they might make from European visitors? US visitors are probably much more 'valuable' in terms of advertisement revenue, and also much more likely to be a subscriber. And I say this as a European myself. It sucks that I have to jump through hoops to access some sites but I can't really blame them.

I'm not really offended that I can't see all content from Europe, but the idiotic newspeak like "Our European visitors are important to us." is almost offensive. I don't see why they aren't just honest.

That "you are important for us and we care deeply about you and your pet iguana" it's the bread and butter of corporate America's PR - it has it's versions on other parts of the World too.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#35

Post by anothernewdude »

raverbashing wrote: post #5

I always read this as: "Our European visitors are important to us BUT vacuuming all your data and selling to multiple bidders is importanter " You wanna be obnoxious? Sure, go ahead, but I'll dislike your site more (and I have adblock so I have no qualms in accepting). Wanna pretend you're compliant by having an obvious non-compliant "solution" and think that will shield your responsibility? Now I'll just hate you an…

Except the GDPR doesn't work as sold.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#36

Post by tester34 »

strangeattractr wrote: post #27

Maybe the blocked content is just divine retribution for the abhorrent cookie consent buttons we all have to press 20 times a day now.

Many sites show cookie consent when they don't have to.

You don't have to show cookie consent when you use cookies purely for "technical stuff" - e.g cookie based authentication.

>Operational cookies

>There are some cookies that we have to include in order for certain web pages to function. For this reason, they do not require your consent. In particular:

>authentication cookies

>technical cookies required by certain IT systems

https://ec.europa.eu/info/cookies_en

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#37

Post by hugosbaseball »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #22

What I don't understand is, why are these local US news sites required to comply with GDPR? I wouldn't think they'd have any obligation to follow it (or any possible recourse for not doing so) unless they have business operations in the EU. Are these local news sites in fact all owned by multinationals that do have operations in the EU? Edit: I'm getting downvoted -- just in case it helps to clarify, I'm not trying t…

The vast majority of "local" news sites are in fact owned by just a handful of media conglomerates.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#38

Post by slavoingilizov »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #22

What I don't understand is, why are these local US news sites required to comply with GDPR? I wouldn't think they'd have any obligation to follow it (or any possible recourse for not doing so) unless they have business operations in the EU. Are these local news sites in fact all owned by multinationals that do have operations in the EU? Edit: I'm getting downvoted -- just in case it helps to clarify, I'm not trying t…

GDPR applies whenever you're providing services to EU citizens, regardless of where you have operations. If you want those people to read your stuff, it applies to you.

And before you say that's crazy, look at US tax laws.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#39

Post by PennRobotics »

causality0 wrote: post #26

Before GDPR passed I heard nothing but "I don't want to patronize a site that doesn't want to respect my privacy" and "we don't need sites that won't follow basic rules like this". Well you got your wish. Your internet is no longer polluted with these reprehensible site owners. Yet people continue to bitch and moan.

Read the thread. They can keep their news, but it's _pushed_ to me by Big Tech. Then, the news sources have the nerve to say, "Thanks for coming. Get out!"

It's the 0% APR that virtually nobody qualifies for at the dealership. Don't suggest content I want but can't have.

Re: It's been three years. Stop saying your European visitors are important to you

#40

Post by user-the-name »

6f8986c3 wrote: post #11
axiosgunnar wrote: post #3

It‘s such an abhorrent marketing style of talking. "Your life is important to us. Therefore we must kill you.“

It is a very safe assumption to make that anything you see or hear in media means the exact opposite.

It is absolutely, in no way whatsoever, even close to a safe assumption.

It is, in fact, what people who are far, far gone into conspiracy theory madness think.

Again, this is not a reasonable thing to think. It is bordering on mental illness.

Post reply on HN