Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–979 of 979 posts

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#971

Post by kerkeslager »

dwedge wrote: post #791
iso1631 wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's much like how in the UK they banned advertising for tobacco, and years later had to expand it so that supermarkets cannot even show the products visibly because the brand has their own inherent advertising that's visible if you can see it. So they got rid of 90% of adverts, then adjusted it to get that upto 99% Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 10…

> Meanwhile you're saying "lets use brainwashing to get 8 year olds hooked because we might not get 100% on the first attempt" I said absolutely nothing of the sort and that hostile style of arguing has no place on this site. I will no longer be engaging with you.

It's always funny to me when people feel the need to tell us they won't be inflicting their poorly-thought-out fallacies on us any more. Don't threaten me with a good time!

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#972

Post by kerkeslager »

maccard wrote: post #606
kerkeslager wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's drop the charade where you pretend you don't know what advertising is. You're smarter than that, and your playing dumb act would be more persuasive if you didn't ask leading questions that clearly show you know the answers. This isn't a good faith argument. I mean are you really asking whether creators embedding "sponsored by" scenes is an ad as if you don't know? C'mon, don't insult your readers with this nons…

OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line. If I receive compensation from company A for a product, and I genuinely like it, is it advertising if I talk about another item on their product line that I bought because of the free item I got? If I run a retail business, and have a better deal with a provider, am I allowed to prioritise their results? If I run an AI SAAS, with a bring you…

> OPs comment isn’t a charade, he’s pointing out that it’s a very blurry line.

Sorry, it just isn't, at least not in a lot of the examples he gave. It's not ambiguous whether "sponsored by" scenes on YouTube are ads: they're ads, and bringing them up only highlights how many OBVIOUSLY NOT BLURRY situations exist that we could easily ban.

> I’m not trying to gish gallop you here - the point isn’t to cherry pick any specific example it’s that advertising isn’t just a billboard or a sponsored VPN segment in a YT video.

Well, whether you're trying to gish gallop or not, you're succeeding!

You're simply ignoring the obvious: it seems you agree that billboards and sponsored VPN segments on YT videos are obviously ads. So we can ban those.

> That doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have a discussion about it.

And I'm equally allowed to point out when what passes for "discussion" here is nakedly disingenuous pro-advertising FUD. Sorry, I just don't believe that you're too stupid to identify advertising when it's blatantly obvious. It's a compliment! You're intelligent!

Sure, there are some ambiguous situations, and that simply does not matter. Ban the obvious cases, then iterate to close further loopholes.

> I’m a hugely pro EU person, and support the vast majority of what they do. The Cookie Banner is a disaster and has just resulted in a massive step back for the Internet worldwide. The USB C charger rule missed the forest for the trees. Their stance on technology has been poor, misguided and misunderstood, and often pushes the needle towards US companies winning out.

Is this the "discussion" you're talking about? It seems like you're just bringing up irrelevant stuff.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#973

Post by [deleted] »

sbszllr wrote: post #565
shevy-java wrote: post #556

Personally I don't like infinite scrolling - but the EU also needs to stop wasting time and energy on trying to micro-manage everything. We already had that disaster where pop-ups fly out "do you want to accept those cookies". That is just a usability nightmare. People are forced into extensions, just to stop wasting their time here. Also, while I dislike infinite scrolling, why should the EU regulate the design of a…

> We already had that disaster where pop-ups fly out "do you want to accept those cookies". That is just a usability nightmare. People are forced into extensions, just to stop wasting their time here. You’re perpetuating a gross misunderstanding of the cookie law. What it states is different from how the advertisers implement malicious compliance to bias people, like yourself. Websites that implement basic functional…

[deleted]

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#974

Post by fsflover »

dahart wrote: post #947
xg15 wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic any and all regulation would be pointless because people will try to circumvent the regulation.

I don’t agree with that. I’m saying that banning advertising payments will obviously have unintended consequences and fail to achieve the actual desired goal. That happens with poorly conceived regulations all the time. I’m also suggesting that not enough people agree with your desire to ban advertising, and there isn’t a clear enough benefit to society, for this particular regulation to pass. You have a Chesterton’s…

You just did not express yourself clearly. Which unintended consequences exactly?

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#975

Post by piekvorst »

breezykoi wrote: post #702
piekvorst wrote: post #617

Censorship comes

I don't see censorship here could you enlighten me? It doesn't seem like they are trying to censor specific topics is it?

I didn’t want to say that a ban on infinite scrolling is a literal censorship. Sorry if I made that impression.

I thought that if one thinks that it’s right to violate property rights, the form of the violation is only a matter of time. Today infinite scrolling, tomorrow unpopular opinions.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#976

Post by rpdillon »

kuschku wrote: post #788
rpdillon wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that I spend hours explaining the actual technical nature of what we're doing to the legal team and I feel that there's often some kind of breakdown in communication because they don't understand the underlying technologies as well as the engineers do. And I haven't had this experience at one company, I've had it at multiple companies, several of which folks in this thread will have heard of. To put a…

That's super interesting, because the lawyers should know that under GDPR, consent needs to be specific . So a generic cookie banner is actually going to make the legal case worse than not having one at all (because you've now demonstrated that you knew you should have explicitly declared usages, partners, and used opt-in consent, but you didn't).

I know that everyone wants to give me legal advice. Lawyers don't care about legal advice from engineers. That's the crux of the point I'm trying to make.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#977

Post by permo-w »

HappySweeney wrote: post #670
alpaca128 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And all existing videos with sponsorship need yo be removed? > Yes, or re-uploaded without the sponsor segment I hope not. For one that would hit retroactively, but also it would cause a huge loss of valuable content from platforms like YouTube as countless videos with sponsor segments are actually interesting and simply too much to reupload, if the uploader is even active still.

Agreed. I believe it's well within Google's ability to auto-edit the sponsored segments out within an acceptable error margin.

They could just buy Sponsorblock

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#978

Post by alpaca128 »

brabel wrote: post #824
HappySweeney wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I believe it's well within Google's ability to auto-edit the sponsored segments out within an acceptable error margin.

Every video that has sponsors has a disclaimer on it so Google knows exactly what those videos are. It could misclassify videos perhaps but I have never seen that happen.

> Every video that has sponsors has a disclaimer on it

No. That's what should be the case, but there are entire channels which don't do that or only half-ass it, and I've seen reviewers who just quickly say "thanks to for their support" in the last 10 seconds of the video because they know no one pays attention anymore at that point. Quite a few review channels also do not correctly communicate that the links in the description are affiliate links etc.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#979

Post by jameson »

deaux wrote: post #522
jameson wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person working at social media I support this as well. I'm a hypocrite. I admit, but the pay is too good to find alternative. Terms like "DAU" or "engagement" is common in our field and the primary objective is how to make users spend more time on our platform. We don't take safety or mental health seriously internally but only externally for PR reasons. CEOs won't change that because the more time user spends o…

> . I'm a hypocrite. I admit Great, admission is the first step. > but the pay is too good to find alternative. Yet then you immediately undo it! Try "I'm too greedy". You're the actor with the free will here. The subject of the sentencd shouldn't be "the pay". That is just an amount, a sum, that exists - neither too high nor too low. That is all in the eye of the beholder.

I left the company as of today btw :)
Post reply on HN