31–40 of 79 posts
The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't a hash work great for this purpose? I.e. 1. User requests for email alice@example.com to be removed from database 2. Company removes "alice@example.com" from 'emails' table 3. Company adds 00b7d3...eff98f to 'do_not_send' table Later on, the company buys emails from some other third-party, and Alice's email is on that list. The company can hash all the email addresses they received, and remove the emails wit…
So in the end, they have a list of emails that match the hashes in their blacklist? What's the point?
The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
nonsense. You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.
What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.
You can't actually do that. None of those companies are charities.
You pay one way or another.
The oligarchs would roll on the ground laughing at this cute desire from the plebs for a few crumbs. The system is so corrupt and bought, it doesn't matter if this passes or not because it will be diluted, unenforced, and/or overturned by a largely corrupt legislature, executive, and judiciary. All hopeful this time™ feel-good efforts will turn to shit until the corruption is sufficiently removed and prevented. No am…
What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
As opposed to bills sponsored by real people that completely decimated privacy? Patriot Act? I’ll take slop that has some semblance of reasonable privacy protection any day.
I could also ask my 5 year old to draw a bill for me, that's as successful as giving a generic bill.
Of course, I’m absolutely for this. It is way overdue. But, what’s the group behind this? Who’s pushing it? I haven’t read through the bill and text yet, but credibility is important in this fight. Plus, this can change at anytime, so knowing who’s behind it amplifies the trust. We need to be having these conversations yesterday. Our fundamental freedoms are under attack, and a bill like this would go a long way to p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.