61–70 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!
The industry was allowed to develop, but not allowed to cause harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!
So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR is more than that. Consent or not, there are things bad actors can do in the USA that in the EU they just can't. Specially to children and vulnerable people. GDPR is an integral part of it. This is a small but significant first step in the right direction. Long way ahead still.
Maybe but it feels like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. It feels like in the end they’re (companies) still getting 99% of what they had before and the user experience of everything is much worse.
My personal GDPR hot take: it's actually been 2 steps forward and 1 super clumsy super loud and obnoxious step back.
I agree with the spirit of comment above. The common sense part of it (if there is one) might just end up eclipsed by wonky UX absurdity. Someone will find a way to paint this picture that our EU reality is a Kafkaesque dystopia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your sole business model depends on having no regulation then your business model is wrong and predatory. Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just that CEOs want that quick buck instead of being responsible and using regulation for their advantage.
>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.
That is "reductio ad absurdum".
[flagged]
And the cookie popups are only there because they never actually enforced GDPR as written.
[flagged]
GDPR is the reason why we have cookie popups, and don't have companies driving through cities to scan number plates and sell everyone's movement records to the highest bidder. And the cookie popups are only there because they never actually enforced GDPR as written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation" General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.
"Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart." That is "reductio ad absurdum". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.
There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.
Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.
Bet on CERN developing affordable antimatter production?