251–260 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a labor mis-allocation bubble. Bubbles burst. Furthermore bubbles should burst, for the health of the economy.
How is this a bubble? Unlike previous bubbles, the current technology surge is actually funded by real value, real demand, real revenues, and gigantic profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a labor mis-allocation bubble. Bubbles burst. Furthermore bubbles should burst, for the health of the economy.
How is this a bubble? Unlike previous bubbles, the current technology surge is actually funded by real value, real demand, real revenues, and gigantic profits.
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
By intentionally sewing economic irrationality (ie beyond how irrational humans are already), advertising destroys societal value. Here I use "irrational" in the sense of "making self-harming economic decisions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the trade-off should be a lot more explicit though, e.g. you get to choose whether pay 5€ per month or your usage data gets sold.
If you want to be GDPR compliant I don't think you can do that. If you offer the "usage data gets sold" option you also have to make that full opt-in _and_ not deny the service if they don't opt-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email address yes, anonymous username not likely You are posting like this is a bad thing, I think it is great, companies need to be held accountable for gobbling up personal data, and should be discouraged from collecting anything including email addresses, I get enough spam thank you.
A lot of people can be tracked down by their online aliases unless the person has gone through a lot of work to make sure they keep their aliases separate (which isn't as easy as it sounds). That means that by definition most aliases and usernames can be googled to find a specific person and thus would fall under personal information according to the law. You think email addresses are bad but the masses hate having t…
Using email as either Verification or Username has always been a lazy and insecure and should stop.
If normies can not recover their candy crush account and need to sign up for a new one in order to protect privacy i am find with that if companies like King stop collecting data
I am security and privacy first, convenience and "free" are about 1000000000000000 on my list of importance. If a lot of free sites die that is price we pay for better data security and privacy. i am fine with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email address yes, anonymous username not likely You are posting like this is a bad thing, I think it is great, companies need to be held accountable for gobbling up personal data, and should be discouraged from collecting anything including email addresses, I get enough spam thank you.
Perhaps you could take some personal responsibility, and, you know, not give your email address to sites/apps that you don't want to have it?
I do however want ownership over my data, and the right to demand these companies tell me what they collect on me (often with out my permission see Facebooks Shadow Profiles on people that do not have accounts) and right to demand they delete said data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you could take some personal responsibility, and, you know, not give your email address to sites/apps that you don't want to have it?
This has nothing to do with me... if more people would like me Facebook, Twitter, etc would not exist at all, and Google would have a massively different business model more like when they started then what they have become. I do however want ownership over my data, and the right to demand these companies tell me what they collect on me (often with out my permission see Facebooks Shadow Profiles on people that do not…
Let's be clear that this law won't pass, certainly not as it is written. In the US, it's perfectly legal for websites to track your behavior. Should you object to this, you have a simple remedy: use incognito mode.
Faulty thinking on my part, probably.
I read this and immediately thought "oh shit, yet another regulation for a small bootstrapped software business where we try to be honest while the big guys will still find a way to circumvent it". Thankfully, I looked into the fine print and was wrong. This bill is only for Corporations that do over $50,000,000 in revenues or higher OR (EDITED from AND) have info on at least 1,000,000 or more customers. Of course, I…
Now I'm not yet familiar with this draft nor with how it's likely to evolve from this point on but you have to do one or the other. You make the regulation overarching enough that partners' lack of compliance affects your own compliance efforts, in which case smaller players are going to have a hard time competing and will be cut out of the ecosystem by legit big companies who have more to lose than you do. If you don't do that and it becomes relatively easy to outsource data-related liability to your partners, there will be a loophole where shady data collection and processing activities will tend to aggregate and move towards entities that are either exempt from regulations or at least willing to take on liability for their customers for short-term gains. The latter is distinctly worse than the status quo because you're making the problem worse. The former is arguably bad for the startup ecosystem.
My understanding is that smaller players are, in the aggregate, much worse about pretty much everything and the effectiveness of GDPR-style regulations depends on the impact they have on smaller players who are much further away from compliance than the big tech companies who were for the most part never too far away from compliance and whose bottom line never depended on any of the alleged shady practices. Most people aren't aware of smaller ad-tech players or data vendors so often their (and their customers' or partners') wrong-doings are blamed on the big tech companies that are much more visible.
To a large extent, what happened in the ad ecosystem is that smaller shadier ad tech companies forced everyone else to become shadier - if they are out there promising marketers more data, better tracking and more accurate measurements and they are accomplishing that through questionable practices, that still raises the bar for what marketers expect and they are able to force their way into integration with other platforms or at least force everyone to do similar things. Ultimately, there's a trade-off between transparency and measurements for marketers and privacy and a world dominated by lots of small players who don't trust one another is one where marketers are forced to require proof that their money is being well-spent, which means more privacy-defeating tracking and measurements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've now moved the goalposts past the present text of the proposal and into hypothetical future versions of it .
That's not "moving goalposts" as you put it. Are you saying that you believe that they would allow such an enormous loophole in such a bill?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is not "is there anything that would clearly be burdensome?", but "am I confident enough that I am complying with these items, as retroactively interpreted by regulators?" You need to pay a lawyer to evaluate that for you, that's the cost, not whoever the bills sponsor says this is intended to target.
Can you cite an example of one of these requirements that you wouldn't be confident in being able to comply with? Also: how much do you think a legal consult costs? For any one item, I think we're talking a couple hundred bucks. Almost all of the language in the section we're referring to applies to just one requirement, which is to make data tech companies retain about consumers available upon request to those consu…