421–430 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is different for different people said differently. Why would small companies have access to things not allowed to big companies?
Because their conditions and abilities are different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, compliance itself is costly, but the cost is stuff that society decided it wanted to spend money on. But uncertainty in compliance and time spent navigating compliance is nearly pure waste.
To continue a conversation from another thread on another post, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and out-of-band context required are all costs that just happen to act as moats for entrenched incumbents. And no surprise, such incumbents often have so much influence over politics that they literally write the laws that regulate them. The folksy aphorism goes, The more wild cards and crazy rules, the greater the exp…
Complexity is clearly hired by lobbyists all the time, but uncertainty and ambiguity seem to me to be mostly caused by incompetence. It's not even clear if uncertainty benefits incumbents more; it can just as likely destroy a market or benefit new entrants, and you can't predict which will happen at the time you create it (otherwise it's not uncertain).
Legislative houses need technocratic QA. And that QA needs to be independent from the law-writing process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI should also be seen as an opportunity for small actors to actually understand and follow numerous complex rules. You don't need a huge legal and compliance team anymore, you just need to feed chatgpt the right amount of legal and ruling documentation, and then consult it on how you can actually comply.
HAHAHAHA good joke. Oh wait. You're serious. Oh god please no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I really want to see is Meta getting irrelevant ON MERIT. People stop using Meta products, and then I want to see it die. The problem is that with a nearly infinite amount of money, you are not going to get irrelevant on merit. You just buy up any company/talent that becomes a threat. They have done that with Instagram and WhatsApp (which was and is really huge in Europe etc.).
Didnt the judge rule literally yesterday that this wasnt illegal. This was one of Lina Khan's signature lawsuits, and judge didnt agree even a single one of FTC's arguments.
Social media companies becoming more consolidated and influential might be legal and good for their stakeholders but it doesn't mean it's a net positive for the rest of the world. And unfortunately, as much as so many people like to believe otherwise, being a net negative to society absolutely does not lead to a company becoming irrelevant.
I don't get why people conclude from the cookie hell that "regulations are bad". If those goddamn websites got actual fines for those dark patterns, they wouldn't do it. The EU should just be stricter with the regulations.
I don't want an internet designed by lawyers and politicians. And I'm afraid that's what this level of regulation and enforcement would create.
Guess what: they didn't want that, and some prefer to make cookie banners which are really obnoxious.
I'm all up for incentives for better websites, and penalties for shit ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would EU governments use cookie banners They generally don't, because you don't need banners to store cookies that you need to store to have a working site . In other words, if you see cookie banner, somebody is asking to store/track stuff about you that's not really needed . Cookie banners were invented by the market as a loophole to continue dark patterns and bad practices. EU is catching flak because its ext…
you CAN use analytics! Just need to use first party analytics... it is not so hard to set up, there are many opensource self-hosted options. I hate how everyone and their mother ships all my data to google and others just because they can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations are like lines of code in a software project. They're good if well written, bad if not, and what matters more is how well they fit into the entire solution
A major difference with regulations is there’s no guaranteed executor of those metaphorical lines of code. If the law gets enforced, then yes, but if nobody enforces it, it loses meaning.
(joke)
I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…
Now, some will agree with you and say that privacy should never be violated, but nonetheless accept a certain measure of tolerance toward that kind of violation, because they see rigid intolerance as causing more harm than the violation of privacy itself is causing [0]. This harm is chiefly the economic harm caused by the burden of regulation and the roadblocks it introduces.
Perhaps this isn't true, but if it is, then moral offense is likely to have little effect. A more effective means might be the make following regulations cheaper. Of course, as we know, when you make something cheaper, you increase demand. This means that EU institutions would likely see this as an opportunity to increase regulation, nullifying the gains of introducing less costly ways to adhere to regulation.
[0] This reminds me of Aquinas's view of prostitution. Naturally, Aquinas saw prostitution as a grave, intrinsic evil. No one is ever justified in soliciting the services of a prostitute, much less of being a prostitute. That's the moral stance; it concerns our personal moral obligations. However, from the position of the state and how the state should police such activity through law, Aquinas saw the criminalization of prostitution, however good in principle it might be, as a policy that would be practically worse - even disastrously so - than law and policy that is permissive toward prostitution. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the principle holds, namely, that the state not only does not need to police every bit of immorality, but by doing so, may actually contribute to the destabilization of society and to an even worse condition than the one it is saddled with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not care about 100s of startups and how they want to use my data for advertisement or other things they benefit from. I care about keeping my personal data private so it will be more difficult to use for profiling me for whatever (whatever!) reason, but all are for other's benefit on no or marginal benefit for me in overwhelmingly major part of the cases. If startups cannot do properly, then they should not do a…
Sure and that's why EU now has the weakest tech sector of any service industry and have become absolutely dependent on US and Chinese software instead. I cannot even use my official government ID application that is mandatory almost everywhere without signing on to Google or Apple, so much for data privacy and sovereignty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.
Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but in…