3 ms·
it's actually easier to not maintain two separate sets of rules The GDPR version of Facebook really can’t function as a social network - at least not the kind
by downandout 9y ago
it's actually easier to not maintain two separate sets of rules
The GDPR version of Facebook really can’t function as a social network - at least not the kind of social network that we would recognize today. So it may be easier to have one version, but that’s not going to happen, and it would be a disservice for the 99% of users that don’t care about privacy but do care about all of the features they are going to have to give up.
- acjohnson55 9y ago> The GDPR version of Facebook really can’t function as a social network Could you explain that?
- downandout 9y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751431
- 0xfeba 9y agoDistinguishing between who is a EU citizen, or who is in the EU right now is problematic. My company is applying the law to everyone.
- chc 9y agoThere seems to be a strange friction between this statement and the reasoning behind it. You say GDPR's restrictions on collecting more information than necessary or storing it longer than necessary would prevent Facebook from functioning as a social network — but if that's the case, then it sounds like the data collection and retention was necessary after all. Am I missing something here?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- downandout 9y agoThe problem is that we don’t know. It doesn’t specify a definition of necessary. Necessary for whom? It isn’t necessary for Facebook to solicit people to make wall posts, so arguably they’d run afoul of the law by simply offering the option to do so. My point was that the law leaves massive room for interpretation. The threat of aggressive application and interpretation of this law could deliver significant leverage to the EU over these companies in matters reaching far beyond privacy.