3 ms·
it's not easy to tell your shareholders you're going to ignore it. It can be if there is too much risk or uncertainity. It can be even easier if there is anti-
by wtfstatists 9y ago
it's not easy to tell your shareholders you're going to ignore it.
It can be if there is too much risk or uncertainity. It can be even easier if there is anti-business characteristics to the policies.
I would say EU classify as such.
- mrguyorama 9y agoIf supporting the privacy rights of your citizens is considered "anti-business", then maybe businesses need a rethink
- kodablah 9y agoYou can phrase it any way you want, like "If adding regulations with potential fines even on mistakes to bankrupt a company, then maybe regulators need a rethink". Why is everyone so focused on what the intention of the rules are and not the practicalities? Often I feel these regulations are throwing spaghetti against a wall praying it sticks (e.g. cookie law). Because there's a problem, so the government must solve it. People can't be asked to self-regulate and governments can't be asked to encourage alternatives. It should be after those alternatives fail that the law is used as a last resort, and even then, marginally until the impacts are understood.
- vsl 9y agoYou need to read up on GDPR and what it really means. You’re probably as annoyed by those ever-present cookie banners everywhere. That’s a direct result of another poorly thought-out EU regulation with good privacy intentions behind it. EU is not an indisputable force for good as you seem to think.