481–490 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely made browsing the open web a worse experience. There should be global opt in/out.
Companies made browsing the web a bad experience, not GDPR. This sentiment is so widespread I'm starting to wonder if it's astroturfed by anti-GDPR lobbying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely made browsing the open web a worse experience. There should be global opt in/out.
> There should be global opt in/out. They should not be. That there is people willing to give their data to big corporations and foreign countries by extension puts everybody at risk. It is a matter of national security and it should not be allowed, no opt in option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in the event of societal collapse, your ex military has zero that binds you to them. That's what's the fallacy. You need the rest of the trappings of modern society to keep wealthy in power.
you seem not to be doing much analysis here. thats fair, its not my job either lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody in America noticed this but lately US ambassadors are going out of their way to insult and undermine the nations that they're posted in.
Wolf Warrior diplomacy on-shored, or perhaps American Sniper diplomacy?
Diplomats need to be adorable pandas not wolves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>American domiciled VCs and companies can outinvest just about any other competitor, Because every investor in the world put their money in the US. They knew the best companies and people would centralize around that hub. When the US is a rogue, isolated idiocracy -- already true, but the world takes time to adapt to this new reality -- how much of that money do you think will flow to the US?
"idiocracy" ... wow ... such a cool word! And so true. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you seem not to be doing much analysis here. thats fair, its not my job either lol
You're free to read about it: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/63913296-billionaire-bun...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are selling to EU residents you are doing business in the EU, no?
I get why people find this hard to believe, because it is kind of a crazy rule, but I repeat once again that this does not matter. Even if you have never sold a single product to an EU resident, and never plan to do so, the EU says as my original comment detailed that you are subject to the GDPR the instant an EU resident provides you with personal data. (And of course, it's also the case that "selling to an EU resid…
In practice, it is easy to pick out the situations in which there is "practical" universal jurisdiction, vs "theoretical" universal jurisdiction.
A Colorado company selling locally in Colorado falls in the "theoretical" bucket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get why people find this hard to believe, because it is kind of a crazy rule, but I repeat once again that this does not matter. Even if you have never sold a single product to an EU resident, and never plan to do so, the EU says as my original comment detailed that you are subject to the GDPR the instant an EU resident provides you with personal data. (And of course, it's also the case that "selling to an EU resid…
American laws also have universal jurisdiction (for example, the Bill of Rights doesn't say, "unless you are located outside the US"). Most countries do not explicitly recognize that their laws do not have universal jurisdiction. In practice, it is easy to pick out the situations in which there is "practical" universal jurisdiction, vs "theoretical" universal jurisdiction. A Colorado company selling locally in Colora…
Some do, but...
> (for example, the Bill of Rights doesn't say, "unless you are located outside the US").
The Bill of Rights is a set of constraints on the US government, so even to the extent it applies to the government when acting outside of its borders [0], it isn’t an imposition of US law on the territory of other countries, but a limit on such imposition.
[0] And it doesn't fully, see, e.g., Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), subsequently limited somewhat with the core holding retained in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies made browsing the web a bad experience, not GDPR. This sentiment is so widespread I'm starting to wonder if it's astroturfed by anti-GDPR lobbying.
Yeah that’s me, I’m funded by the anti-GDPR lobby. Still waiting on my check.
But more seriously, this discussion has come up so many times on this site, that I could instantly find myself talking about it a handful of times at least:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45669399 (go up-parent a few times if more context is needed)
And that doesn't even go into whether sites actually need to ask for cookie consent at all if they aren't collecting user data outside of functional necessity (they don't).