121–130 of 443 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? The issue isn't what we personally like or prefer for ourselves -- it's more about when we think it's legitimate to take away the right of businesses to experiment with business models, and of consumers to be free to enter into the tradeoffs they prefer. Why shouldn't a consumer be…
Meta is still allowed to do this, so consumers still get a choice. Meta is just now forced to ask consumers for their explicit consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? The issue isn't what we personally like or prefer for ourselves -- it's more about when we think it's legitimate to take away the right of businesses to experiment with business models, and of consumers to be free to enter into the tradeoffs they prefer. Why shouldn't a consumer be…
That's how we get food safety laws, employment laws, waste disposal laws, etc. With regards to food safety for example, the vast majority of people don't have the equipment nor knowledge to be able to test whether the food they just bought isn't contaminated, so it's better for everyone if the law just uses the threat of significant penalties to force companies to produce safe food and that people can buy and eat food and be 99% confident there is nothing nasty in there.
The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default.
[flagged]
What is the roll out process by which GDPR and this enforcement action could take place and would be seen as "predictable?"
Surely we wouldn't expect every business model that ought to be subject to regulation be divined and curtailed prior to anyone entering the market.
"Users therefore need to be provided with a yes/no ("opt-in") consent option, otherwise Meta may not use their data for personalized advertisement." I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.
This would not be valid under GDPR, they would still need to have a tracking opt in for the "free" version. There are no loopholes to this.
This has been ruled as being valid by courts.
[flagged]
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
/agreed
Trading trinkets to the natives for land is the most apt analogy I can think of.
In a capitalist society, we should be able to set the price for something that we own. My data is worth way more than the cost to provide the trivial services that Facebook, Gmail, etc provide.
[flagged]
As per PG decree the threshold for downvote is disagreement, not “contribution to the discussion”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? The issue isn't what we personally like or prefer for ourselves -- it's more about when we think it's legitimate to take away the right of businesses to experiment with business models, and of consumers to be free to enter into the tradeoffs they prefer. Why shouldn't a consumer be…
So yeah, I think legislation should strongly push things away from free - because everything has a cost and it should be visible to end users.
[0] - https://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/the-powe...
World party planning: China: I'll bring the hardware! US: I'll bring the software! EU: I'll bring the lawyers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the standard becomes "make illegal business models that the media gets enough people upset about" (without even a vote where the alternatives [paying for service] are clearly explained), then -yeah- people are going to be left poorer. Europe already endured centuries of this when the majority Christian ethos was that usury & banking were an evil to be banned. This, among other things of course, helped sentence mil…
> This, among other things of course, helped sentence millions of people to poor and deprived lives for centuries. Wealth inequality is much worse in the US than Europe, so relatively speaking, "poor" in EU is still much better than "poor" in the US.
Obviously this is not the end alm be all of how good life is, but there are numerous studies indicating the average of goods and services provided to the poorest 20% in the US is higher than the amount of goods and services provided to the median EU citizen.