84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress • Hacker News Board

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#71

Post by weberer » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #21

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

Is this a trickle-down style of argument? Or that corporations are holy? Or that they always have the job takers interests at heart? Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws? I'm confused.

>Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws?

This one is closest. Said companies hire lobbyists to always be in the ear of politicians. For example, here are the recent bills that Google has lobbied on. Note that most of them are about privacy.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?c...

They also give large donations to politicians when they're campaigning. Or the opposition if the candidate isn't willing to play ball. This is all completely legal, as long as its disclosed.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#72

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:21 PM UTC

repelsteeltje wrote: post #52

seydor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could say that Norway's flagship corporation has a horrible business model. The Norwegians have never held a referendum whether they should stop drilling , but they are so environmentally conscious that it's not unlikely. Should Norway stop drilling and let its sovereign fund collapse (along with the value of many global companies where it invests)? Is there any State that is purely moral?

Wrt. privacy here at least, I don't think you need to be moral or ethical per se. It's more a matter of incentives: carrots and sticks. Regardless of what the rules are, corporations will react to them. So if regulation simply maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people the rules will likely end up protecting privacy. So what we see here is that some high paying jobs create a bunch of powerful group…

This is exactly what happens with one exception, these groups don't have to lobby.

The politicians know full well that many of the highest paid people in their respective districts are employees in tech. This is true across most of the US. No one, and I mean no one, is interested in becoming a new rust belt city. So politicians act to keep the money flowing and the tax coffers full so that they can then dole out projects. The doling out of projects is a necessary, some would even say foundational, basis of whatever corrupt extraction is able to be carried out.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#73

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

The real real truth is that most consumers are totally content with the current state of things, and spend virtually zero time worrying about online privacy (yes, people exist outside tech bubbles).

If google pushed to a privacy subscription model, where you could pay for google services and have all your privacy protected, people would get mad and tell google to "bring back the free stuff!".

I'm surprised people here don't see this as plainly true. Consumers _love_ the ad-supported internet, as evidenced by the incredible success of ad-supported vs subscription supported services.

What people actually want is "Privacy protection yet the internet stays the same". Which is akin to "$50 minimum wage but society stays the same". Purely naive idealistic thinking.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#74

Post by Arnt » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

seydor wrote: post #28

repelsteeltje wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like flagship corporations have a horrible business model if employees are highly-payed to invade privacy. I'm sure, those companies have enough smart people to figure out some way to create high-paying jobs that do not rely on invasion of privacy. [Added] ...if only they were incentivized to do so

One could say that Norway's flagship corporation has a horrible business model. The Norwegians have never held a referendum whether they should stop drilling , but they are so environmentally conscious that it's not unlikely. Should Norway stop drilling and let its sovereign fund collapse (along with the value of many global companies where it invests)? Is there any State that is purely moral?

What? I'm Norwegian and very surprised at every assertion here.

Not unlikely? It has never been seriously discussed (e.g. because others would simply increase production to compensate). The fund would collapse? Why?

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#75

Post by scarface_74 » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

zooq_ai wrote: post #13

This is just another clueless populist article. The key to actually ask people "What are you willing to give up for X"? Are you ok being more annoyed with popups asking your permissions every time? Are you ok with a recession in Ad-based ecosystem (merchants, ad brokers, stock market depression, fewer IPOs) that may result due to this? Would you be OK with paying for services instead of an Ad model? (and before Virtu…

I currently pay for:

- Apple devices because while they are getting bad with advertising, they aren’t as bad as Google

- Hulu, Netflix, Disney, Max, Paramount+ and AppleTV as part of the bundle - ad free

- Slate podcasts, Stratechery, and Downstream

- I refuse to use any app/game that doesn’t have an option to turn off ads.

- I use an Adblocker for the rest

- I don’t use YouTube, I pay for training content when I need it.

It’s not that I’m militantly opposed to advertising morally, it ruins the enjoyment of media.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#76

Post by misterbishop » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

ultimately we have to overthrow capitalism via a revolutionary workers party.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#77

Post by vundercind » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:31 PM UTC

zooq_ai wrote: post #27

Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy grows or shrinks with productivity but advertising specifically is zero sum. Coke vs Pepsi makes a great deal of difference to those specific companies and little else. If anything it’s slightly negative due to inefficiency because the winner isn’t the best product.

[flagged]

Rivalrous advertising spending between two megacorps everyone already knows is zero-sum. You’re spending money just because the other guy increased spending, and market share stays the same. But you can’t not spend or you might lose market share. Now you’re both spending more to achieve the same result.

[edit] zero sum in terms of the market-share game—the size of the pie stays the same, you’re just adjusting who gets how much. Negative sum for the overall game in the case that total spending increases.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#78

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:34 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #36

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

Privacy of majority of population is more important than income of a bunch of corrupt SV engineers, isn't it?

Problem is it actually decimate the engineers in Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas as well.

Oh! And don't forget the youtubers and content creators in Montana, Indiana, and Kansas.

And on and on and on.

It's not as straightforward as people think, and it reaches a whole lot further than people realize. I'm a privacy activist and have studied the issue, but I still fall on the "more privacy needed" side of the fence. Likely because I'm very much in the "burn it all down" faction of privacy advocates. However, I do understand what I'm up against. There are a lot of people who are either on the other side presently, or will be on the other side as soon as they realize their pay checks will go away as the effects of closing privacy loopholes ripple through the economy.

We have to be clear eyed here, and prepared for enormous opposition to these ideas when these issues become better understood. Which is why I say we should act now. It's like Andor said, "There will never be fewer guards than there are today." As more people gain understanding of the financial impacts, the number of people on the other side will grow.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#79

Post by eru » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #66

eru wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you are trying to say, but I'm not quite sure why Norway's sovereign fund would collapse just because the Norwegians would stop adding more money to the fund? And why would the companies they invest in collapse? The companies in the S&P500 don't collapse, when I stop making regular new payments into my retirement fund.

It would not collapse, but the inflows to the fund would. However, it would still likely provide for decades at least. Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself.

> Norway distributes the returns from the fund, not the fund money itself.

Is that adjusted for inflation?

To explain, suppose I have a stock that went up 10% last year (and paid no dividends, to keep things simple). If inflation was also 10%, there was no real return from my investment, and nothing should be distributed. If inflation was 2%, my real return was about 8%, and we could distribute that without touching 'the fund money itself'.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#80

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:42 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #21

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

Is this a trickle-down style of argument? Or that corporations are holy? Or that they always have the job takers interests at heart? Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws? I'm confused.

It's clearly a "corporations are holy" kind of argument, where it's implicit that if one breaks down the oligopoly that is oppressing the market and disallowing innovation, the entire economy will go down, since the oligopoly is the entire economy.

But I don't think the OP noticed that.