31–40 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read this once: There are two kinds of people: those who want to make the world a better place and those who want to make enough money to afford to not care.
Do you think that a guy that writes something like that, is going to understand/consider your message? 10/1 you're better off speaking to a chair
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that a guy that writes something like that, is going to understand/consider your message? 10/1 you're better off speaking to a chair
Given that they including a winky face at the end I am fairly sure you missed the sarcasm inherent in the statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
could you please explain what those abbreviations mean? I know GDPR, but the rest are obscure to me.
NOYB: "None of Your Business", it's the site being linked. They're a customer rights activist group led by Max Schrems whose self-declared job appears to be "drag every business in the world to the attention of the DPAs to make sure they're both compliant and don't do any funny business with the GDPR". DPA: Data Protection Authority. They're local to each EU country (including those that aren't full Member States but…
I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
> pay for services instead of being the product That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?) and repeating it only helps the worst infringers. You can pay and still be the product. Consider the streaming services which charge you but still serve ads, or physical appliances that you buy but send your usage habits to the manufacturer (like TVs). Paying is not a guarantee that a company will treat you or your priv…
Nothing in life is a guarantee. It’s pure pedantry to hear someone say “I would rather pay than be the product” and to choose to interpret that as “I believe that paying always guarantees that the company will never also use indirect monetization”.
Preferring business with direct monetization models is risk mitigation, not a naive (and incorrect) belief in a magic bullet solution to a complex problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay for services instead of being the product That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?) and repeating it only helps the worst infringers. You can pay and still be the product. Consider the streaming services which charge you but still serve ads, or physical appliances that you buy but send your usage habits to the manufacturer (like TVs). Paying is not a guarantee that a company will treat you or your priv…
Here here. Paying no longer protects anything. If anything, you’re more valuable as a data brokered account if you’re KYC verified as a real person: so in fact the opposite case is now often the reality. Consider that paying makes you prime rib for Sunday dinner from a data perspective: card verified PII. And do not forget that you can be assigned an ID and disassociated from your data, which can then be tracked anon…
The DPC (if it is legally an option) should go for the highest possible fines available to them at this point, since Meta has by repeated and wilful infringing made it pretty clear that they will try anything to get around these laws. Like I have some sympathy for a legacy business that simply mismanages their GDPR obligations and buys some dodgy "compliance management" solution and ends up infringing - there a "slap…
I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
Since running a business costs money, the only result that will satisfy organisations like noyb is that companies like Facebook disappear from the EU. You will read many people here in HN openly saying how they would like social media to disappear, not only for themselves, but for everybody else, including those who enjoy it.
They should charge a fair price for their product and deliver something good to customers.
No one is forcing Facebook to not charge for their service. They just can’t do it without slurping your data. If they can’t have a business without invading people’s privacy, they shouldn’t have a business. It is baffling that people still shill these practices from big corporations. It’s like saying “I can’t make money without robbing you, so it should be legal for me to rob you”.
> the only result that will satisfy organisations like noyb is that companies like Facebook disappear from the EU.
This is absolutely not true and frankly reads like an argument in bad faith. noyb’s position is clear: don’t invade people’s privacy.