31–40 of 97 posts
https://archive.ph/2025.02.09-074637/https://www.heise.de/en... As you cannot deny cookies without paying.
Alternatively the "reader view" feature in Firefox can be used as the entire article is loaded in memory (as opposed to other websites where they'd load a preview till you agree to cookies / pay for a subscription)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Once (if) the government cracks on the retailer, the retailer cracks down on sellers who use their platform. Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar.
> Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar. And my grandmother could get some wheels and become a bicycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. I bought some tools on Amazon, sent them back because of quality issues, and left a 1 star review (they don't allow zero star reviews but that's another issue). Sure enough I get an email offering to send me a replacement, asking me to remove my review, I reported it and who knows what happens from there. Now, I have had very similar things happen on a website like Home…
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government. Amazon and eBay should crack down on it so the government doesn't. History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation.
Citing a couple would help your argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. I bought some tools on Amazon, sent them back because of quality issues, and left a 1 star review (they don't allow zero star reviews but that's another issue). Sure enough I get an email offering to send me a replacement, asking me to remove my review, I reported it and who knows what happens from there. Now, I have had very similar things happen on a website like Home…
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. I bought some tools on Amazon, sent them back because of quality issues, and left a 1 star review (they don't allow zero star reviews but that's another issue). Sure enough I get an email offering to send me a replacement, asking me to remove my review, I reported it and who knows what happens from there. Now, I have had very similar things happen on a website like Home…
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
Ebay to me is always bit of an uncontrolled market. But on other hand I fully expect Amazon and other such marketplaces to fully vet their suppliers. And if they are doing fulfilment take any legal hits from not doing reasonable due diligence with stolen or fraudulent merch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is under consideration now due to the meta case. The GDPR states that consent should be freely given and one can argue that forcing you to choose between payment our tracking is not a free choice but cohersed. I personally think that interpretation is correct. Since a large part of German media in also doing the same, they are lobbying for this to only apply to "large online providers". Here is a good writeup on…
You forgot the 3rd option… don’t consume their content. Pay, allow cookies, or surf elsewhere. GDPR doesn’t require them to give away content for free. Edit - ok, being downvoted - how should content be monetized if both targeted ads and subscriptions are off the table? Are we saying GDPR requires a site to operate off generic, non-targeted ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government. Amazon and eBay should crack down on it so the government doesn't. History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation.
> History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation. Citing a couple would help your argument.
The "business model" of the EU is to check if something is going wrong or could be changed to make the life of European citizens better, to then show that to the industry with "hey, we noticed X - you got a chance to clean up shop on your own, or we will force you by passing laws".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Once (if) the government cracks on the retailer, the retailer cracks down on sellers who use their platform. Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar.
Worked for a company that made a machine used for automated. Built with USA government specifics and it could remove limbs. Over 1600 Newton force, equivalent to an adult panda. Model A. It was risk assessed and needed a complete redesign for the EU market. Model B is so safe it cannot even take off a finger. Now model A is no longer built and model B is sold in the USA and EU. It was not the goodness of the company…
The problem in the US is that they don't do either of those things well and then you get consolidated markets that are insulated from competition or competitive markets where fraud is rampant, and the latter tend to become the former because a high rate of fraud causes people to turn to major brands to protect themselves until the market consolidates.
The problem in Europe is that they not only don't prevent market consolidation, they pass rules that make it worse. You don't need to micromanage how stuff is made or how people interact with each other as long as you have competitive markets and informed consumers, because then people just don't patronize abusive businesses because they both have alternatives and know about them. But if you do micromanage everything then compliance costs go up, which are fixed costs that increase barriers to entry into the market, which reduces competition and then you're screwed again. The best case there is cost disease where everything costs an order of magnitude more than it should because everyone is paying for an army of bureaucrats to check boxes, but even more common is that you get that and abusive cartels that take advantage of consumers in every way that hasn't already been regulated. Which becomes a vicious cycle where more abuses lead to more regulations which lead to higher costs and even more market consolidation.