4 ms·

For those commentors who think digital privacy is a basic human right and should be protected by their goverment: Does that mean you'd knowingly bankrupt facebo

by soared 9y ago

For those commentors who think digital privacy is a basic human right and should be protected by their goverment: Does that mean you'd knowingly bankrupt facebook, google, gmail, youtube, etc? You absolutely cannot assume that could just seamlessly switch to a payment model and everything would be fine. In Colorado they simply cannot convince the public to pass a law allowing liquor/beer stores in grocery sales. The public doesn't want to knowingly condemn every mom and pop liquor store because safeway would easily put them out of business. Do you really think the public would knowingly condemn facebook, twitter, google, youtube, etc.? (Fb/google/etc are not mom and pop, but the comparison still holds some merit)

khalilravanna 9y ago
My thinking for the Colorado mom-pop liquor store example is: Texas is a state which allows beer (no liquor with an ABV above wine, I believe). Liquor stores there seem to do just fine with the caveat that they have to be "real liquor stores". Meaning, they can't just sell Coors and Budweiser, they have to specialize and carry the newest/hottest craft beers and employ a staff that can give recommendations. If I wanted a Miller High Life or a well known craft beer like Dogfishhead I would just go to HEB (large grocery store chain) otherwise if I wanted more of a selection I'd hit up a "real" liquor store. So yeah, sure those mom-pop places will go out of business if they don't adapt. But, hey, if you run a shitty business, you should expect it to fail, right? Analogously, if there are products that offer the same utility of FB/Google/etc with the added benefit of not farming out everyone's personal information, they should totally be bankrupted. They're making a worse product. That being said, me arguing against your analogy falls apart here. Laws being passed in Colorado means, mom-pop's will be shuttered because other businesses will canabalize them with better services. In the case of passing laws for digital privacy, Google, et. al, would be condemned because their products would become illegal, not because there's a better competitor putting them out of business. That being said, I'm sure they'd have some sort of timeline to change their products to fit the laws. My albeit hazy understanding of the EU privacy shield laws leads me to believe that was the case there. tl;dr: I'd personally be fine seeing Google/et. al being forced to adapt their products due to "privacy as a right" regulation changes. Within reason of course. I think they should have a period of time where they can make their products fit such regulations.
khedoros1 9y ago
> Does that mean you'd knowingly bankrupt facebook, google, gmail, youtube, etc? You absolutely cannot assume that could just seamlessly switch to a payment model and everything would be fine. In the practical sense, I think that the hard part would be coming up with a workable transition plan. I think you're being melodramatic, though. There'd be massive disruption, but I don't suspect that Alphabet or Facebook would just slide under the waves. > Do you really think the public would knowingly condemn facebook, twitter, google, youtube, etc.? Hell no. People love all those things. I like them myself, despite their obvious problems. > The public doesn't want to knowingly condemn every mom and pop liquor store because safeway would easily put them out of business. All of the chain grocery stores near me carry beer, wine, and all varieties of spirits. We've still got mom+pop liquor stores all over the place. 2 are within a 10 minute walk of my condo. In Colorado, I think the big problem wouldn't have been the chains carrying liquor, but the sudden change in the status quo if they were allowed to now.

by soared 9y ago

khalilravanna 9y ago

My thinking for the Colorado mom-pop liquor store example is: Texas is a state which allows beer (no liquor with an ABV above wine, I believe). Liquor stores there seem to do just fine with the caveat that they have to be "real liquor stores". Meaning, they can't just sell Coors and Budweiser, they have to specialize and carry the newest/hottest craft beers and employ a staff that can give recommendations. If I wanted a Miller High Life or a well known craft beer like Dogfishhead I would just go to HEB (large grocery store chain) otherwise if I wanted more of a selection I'd hit up a "real" liquor store. So yeah, sure those mom-pop places will go out of business if they don't adapt. But, hey, if you run a shitty business, you should expect it to fail, right? Analogously, if there are products that offer the same utility of FB/Google/etc with the added benefit of not farming out everyone's personal information, they should totally be bankrupted. They're making a worse product. That being said, me arguing against your analogy falls apart here. Laws being passed in Colorado means, mom-pop's will be shuttered because other businesses will canabalize them with better services. In the case of passing laws for digital privacy, Google, et. al, would be condemned because their products would become illegal, not because there's a better competitor putting them out of business. That being said, I'm sure they'd have some sort of timeline to change their products to fit the laws. My albeit hazy understanding of the EU privacy shield laws leads me to believe that was the case there. tl;dr: I'd personally be fine seeing Google/et. al being forced to adapt their products due to "privacy as a right" regulation changes. Within reason of course. I think they should have a period of time where they can make their products fit such regulations.

khedoros1 9y ago

> Does that mean you'd knowingly bankrupt facebook, google, gmail, youtube, etc? You absolutely cannot assume that could just seamlessly switch to a payment model and everything would be fine. In the practical sense, I think that the hard part would be coming up with a workable transition plan. I think you're being melodramatic, though. There'd be massive disruption, but I don't suspect that Alphabet or Facebook would just slide under the waves. > Do you really think the public would knowingly condemn facebook, twitter, google, youtube, etc.? Hell no. People love all those things. I like them myself, despite their obvious problems. > The public doesn't want to knowingly condemn every mom and pop liquor store because safeway would easily put them out of business. All of the chain grocery stores near me carry beer, wine, and all varieties of spirits. We've still got mom+pop liquor stores all over the place. 2 are within a 10 minute walk of my condo. In Colorado, I think the big problem wouldn't have been the chains carrying liquor, but the sudden change in the status quo if they were allowed to now.