7 ms·

I really don't understand what the EU's goal is here. Someone said that it's to model the "walled garden of regulation" approach that China has: Make regulation

I really don't understand what the EU's goal is here. Someone said that it's to model the "walled garden of regulation" approach that China has: Make regulations so tough and block out outside actors, creating an internal market that can thrive. Also wanting to break out the dominance of American tech companies within EU, and foster innovation. However, I have yet to see a single argument where these regulations (both GDPR and ePrivacy) don't hurt EU businesses, and favors companies outside that don't have to abide by these stricter regulations. So why has EU adopted this extremely hard line approach? What is the best case scenario?

beojan 9y ago
The EU tried the soft touch approach and we just got generic cookie warnings on everything, so now we have the stricter regulation. The ultimate purpose is to put a stop to pervasive tracking and user-targeted advertising. Advertisers will just have to go back to targeting based on the content the ad is displayed with instead.
- x0x0 9y ago
  The point is that will not pay enough, so it's highly likely most free content disappears.
  - iagooar 9y ago
    Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informational clutter and improve quality of the content.
    - blfr 9y ago
      Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.
      - tyfon 9y ago
        Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
        blfr 9y ago
        How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
      - avianlyric 9y ago
        Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
        blfr 9y ago
        Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    So you think nobody will pay for ads because they don't get the tracking bonus? I don't believe it.
  - yuhong 9y ago
    And the ad bubble themselves is partly to blame, thanks to the way the debt-based economy works. For example, Google raises housing prices in California.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Or, it gets run by enthusiasts instead of companies. We had a huge internet ecosystem before everyone was being tracked, and it has only gotten worse since.
  - beojan 9y ago
    That's the point. People will click on clickbait but very few will pay for it. Without the tracking, you also lose the filter bubbles that only show you opinions you agree with.
Xylakant 9y ago
The EU (and certainly mostly Germany) has historically a very strict stance on protecting private data. The so called “informationelle Selbstbestimmung” is regarded a part of the fundamental human rights. See for example the Volkszählungsurteil of the german constitutional court (German, sorry https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlungsurteil https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlungsurteil) So the best case scenario is that the goal is to actually protect the EU citizens. (I’ll avoid discussing whether the GDPR is a good tool to achieve this goal)
- x0x0 9y ago
  Though the gdpr doesn't really do that; see one-stop-shop and all. It's transparently aimed at American companies. NB: I don't necessarily disagree with the EU deciding to break Google and FB's business models; but pretending that's not what is happening is silly. It would have been helpful if FB hadn't basically told EU privacy regulators to DIAF.
  - guy98238710 9y ago
    Aren't big consumer-oriented businesses (mostly American) in the best position to extort consent from end users?
    - x0x0 9y ago
      They're in the weakest position. The GDPR is composed of a bunch of vague hand waving subject to after the fact rule making by 29-ish different country specific privacy orgs, plus a fewer number of rules set out in black and white, presumably with limited local rule making capabilities. The black and white rules include that consent must be default opt-out, must specifically enumerate and permission each processing purpose, and cannot be required unless necessary to provide the service, even for free services.
      - guy98238710 9y ago
        What stops Google from presenting users with a large popup with lots of legal notices mixed with sweet talking marketese? Most people would just click "Okay, I agree" having never read anything in that popup.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 9y ago
The reason for this regulation is the privacy of EU citizens. Businesses (both in EU and outside) don't "behave well" by themselves, since there's an inherent profit motive in violating users' privacy and interests, so this regulation is forcing them to do this. The best case is just that - businesses serving EU citizens (this includes most large multinational businesses as well, companies hosted outside do have to abide with these stricter regulation at least for EU users, since almost always they also have EU customers or EU presence) have to obey these rules. They don't get to (ab)use user's data that much and are unhappy about this, but figure out on how to live on without that data.
- erikrothoff 9y ago
  I absolutely agree that privacy is important. However, what I'd like to understand more is: What are the regulators actually expecting to happen? Looking at the first version of the cookie law, basically the end result was a worse user experience across EU websites. Large warnings that take up large screen real estate, people learning to just blindly accept without reading. I was trying to explain to my SO that I'd been to a presentation about GDPR and ePrivacy, and said "It's the new version of the cookie warning" "Oh is that those awful warnings? I hate those I don't even understand what they are trying to say" From a pragmatic standpoint the result of these new regulations seems to be not that publishers and other ad-financed businesses are saying "OK, ads are bad, let's do less of those". They are finding workarounds that abide by the law, but still allow them to target ads as optimally as they can. The true winners in this are obviously the platforms with the largest database of users and user interest: Google and Facebook. The two companies are are dominating already, and in essence killing smaller local (EU) publishers. So from that perspective, are the regulators hoping that publishers and local companies band together, creating cookie pools and sharing user information amongst themselves to strengthen their position against FB and GOOG? Or are they hoping that EU companies come up with the holy grail of new revenue streams that nobody has though of yet? TL;DR: In my mind: T stop bad things regulators make laws against something, and also to promote the "right way". Example: People get hit by cars crossing the roads anywhere. They invent a crosswalk and make it illegal to cross the road anywhere other than the crosswalk. What is the ePrivacy version of the crosswalk?
pjc50 9y ago
Why guess at a conspiracy, when there's a stated reason in the document itself? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0679 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A3... > 3. "The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This Regulation respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the respect for private and family life, home and communications, the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity." (and so on for 173 paragraphs before the directive starts)
Sylos 9y ago
Politics ideally try to generate the highest sum of wealth and well-being across all citizens. Having healthy corporations is nice, because it means your citizens have work, get paid etc., but it's not a goal unto itself. If those corporations are healthy, because they exploit your citizens, then they generate on average negative wealth. So, you need to put laws into place that balance things out. That's why the EU might want to put these laws into place. You also seem to be misinformed about the GDPR. An essential part of it is that companies outside of the EU now do have to abide by EU data protection laws, if they want to process data of people in the EU. This really improves the situation for EU businesses, as they do not anymore have to compete against Google, Facebook, Microsoft and the like on uneven grounds. This is described in section 2 here: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/

beojan 9y ago

The EU tried the soft touch approach and we just got generic cookie warnings on everything, so now we have the stricter regulation. The ultimate purpose is to put a stop to pervasive tracking and user-targeted advertising. Advertisers will just have to go back to targeting based on the content the ad is displayed with instead.

x0x0 9y ago
The point is that will not pay enough, so it's highly likely most free content disappears.
- iagooar 9y ago
  Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informational clutter and improve quality of the content.
  - blfr 9y ago
    Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.
    - tyfon 9y ago
      Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
      - blfr 9y ago
        How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
    - avianlyric 9y ago
      Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
      - blfr 9y ago
        Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.
- aluhut 9y ago
  So you think nobody will pay for ads because they don't get the tracking bonus? I don't believe it.
- yuhong 9y ago
  And the ad bubble themselves is partly to blame, thanks to the way the debt-based economy works. For example, Google raises housing prices in California.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Or, it gets run by enthusiasts instead of companies. We had a huge internet ecosystem before everyone was being tracked, and it has only gotten worse since.
- beojan 9y ago
  That's the point. People will click on clickbait but very few will pay for it. Without the tracking, you also lose the filter bubbles that only show you opinions you agree with.

Xylakant 9y ago

The EU (and certainly mostly Germany) has historically a very strict stance on protecting private data. The so called “informationelle Selbstbestimmung” is regarded a part of the fundamental human rights. See for example the Volkszählungsurteil of the german constitutional court (German, sorry https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlungsurteil https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlungsurteil) So the best case scenario is that the goal is to actually protect the EU citizens. (I’ll avoid discussing whether the GDPR is a good tool to achieve this goal)

x0x0 9y ago
Though the gdpr doesn't really do that; see one-stop-shop and all. It's transparently aimed at American companies. NB: I don't necessarily disagree with the EU deciding to break Google and FB's business models; but pretending that's not what is happening is silly. It would have been helpful if FB hadn't basically told EU privacy regulators to DIAF.
- guy98238710 9y ago
  Aren't big consumer-oriented businesses (mostly American) in the best position to extort consent from end users?
  - x0x0 9y ago
    They're in the weakest position. The GDPR is composed of a bunch of vague hand waving subject to after the fact rule making by 29-ish different country specific privacy orgs, plus a fewer number of rules set out in black and white, presumably with limited local rule making capabilities. The black and white rules include that consent must be default opt-out, must specifically enumerate and permission each processing purpose, and cannot be required unless necessary to provide the service, even for free services.
    - guy98238710 9y ago
      What stops Google from presenting users with a large popup with lots of legal notices mixed with sweet talking marketese? Most people would just click "Okay, I agree" having never read anything in that popup.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

PeterisP 9y ago

The reason for this regulation is the privacy of EU citizens. Businesses (both in EU and outside) don't "behave well" by themselves, since there's an inherent profit motive in violating users' privacy and interests, so this regulation is forcing them to do this. The best case is just that - businesses serving EU citizens (this includes most large multinational businesses as well, companies hosted outside do have to abide with these stricter regulation at least for EU users, since almost always they also have EU customers or EU presence) have to obey these rules. They don't get to (ab)use user's data that much and are unhappy about this, but figure out on how to live on without that data.

erikrothoff 9y ago
I absolutely agree that privacy is important. However, what I'd like to understand more is: What are the regulators actually expecting to happen? Looking at the first version of the cookie law, basically the end result was a worse user experience across EU websites. Large warnings that take up large screen real estate, people learning to just blindly accept without reading. I was trying to explain to my SO that I'd been to a presentation about GDPR and ePrivacy, and said "It's the new version of the cookie warning" "Oh is that those awful warnings? I hate those I don't even understand what they are trying to say" From a pragmatic standpoint the result of these new regulations seems to be not that publishers and other ad-financed businesses are saying "OK, ads are bad, let's do less of those". They are finding workarounds that abide by the law, but still allow them to target ads as optimally as they can. The true winners in this are obviously the platforms with the largest database of users and user interest: Google and Facebook. The two companies are are dominating already, and in essence killing smaller local (EU) publishers. So from that perspective, are the regulators hoping that publishers and local companies band together, creating cookie pools and sharing user information amongst themselves to strengthen their position against FB and GOOG? Or are they hoping that EU companies come up with the holy grail of new revenue streams that nobody has though of yet? TL;DR: In my mind: T stop bad things regulators make laws against something, and also to promote the "right way". Example: People get hit by cars crossing the roads anywhere. They invent a crosswalk and make it illegal to cross the road anywhere other than the crosswalk. What is the ePrivacy version of the crosswalk?

pjc50 9y ago

Why guess at a conspiracy, when there's a stated reason in the document itself? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0679 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A3... > 3. "The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This Regulation respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the respect for private and family life, home and communications, the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity." (and so on for 173 paragraphs before the directive starts)

Sylos 9y ago

Politics ideally try to generate the highest sum of wealth and well-being across all citizens. Having healthy corporations is nice, because it means your citizens have work, get paid etc., but it's not a goal unto itself. If those corporations are healthy, because they exploit your citizens, then they generate on average negative wealth. So, you need to put laws into place that balance things out. That's why the EU might want to put these laws into place. You also seem to be misinformed about the GDPR. An essential part of it is that companies outside of the EU now do have to abide by EU data protection laws, if they want to process data of people in the EU. This really improves the situation for EU businesses, as they do not anymore have to compete against Google, Facebook, Microsoft and the like on uneven grounds. This is described in section 2 here: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/