4 ms·
It's inconvenient for the non-shady, non adtech, we give you a service in exchange for money businesses too! I think the best thing to take away from GDPR comp
by woolvalley 9y ago
It's inconvenient for the non-shady, non adtech, we give you a service in exchange for money businesses too!
I think the best thing to take away from GDPR compliance is 'it's not as easy as you think it is', 'it's not as obvious as you think it is', and small businesses who totally respect privacy will probably still be breaking GDPR.
- rectang 9y agoI'm OK with that and I accept that cost, because in my eyes stopping the savage victimization of users is worthwhile. For you (or the WSJ) to persuade me that the GDPR is problematic, I'd have to believe that first, that's something that those opposed to the GDPR actually care about, and that it's something that could be achieved through other means.
- chrischen 9y agoExcept this does nothing to really stop the savage victimization of users by Facebook or Google. If anything it solidifes their dominance. The abuses are happening from these big companies, not the thousands of tiny startups that live and die within months that have a few hundred thousand users.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y agoThis argument is of the "we can't solve the problem completely, so let's do nothing about it" kind. The abuse is happening from both camps and we all know it, especially here on HN where some of us are actively developing user-tracking schemes and ad-targeting platforms for a living.
- nemothekid 9y agoIMO, it's less "both camps are doing it" and more have we now insulated these giants from any future competition. For example, how do the decentralized social platforms (mastadon, diaspora), exist under GDPR?
- AstralStorm 9y agoUnder explicit consent of the people putting the data in. All this needs is a nice informative screen on how the data will be used and that it will be publicly available, which may mean being processed by other registered users and unknown third parties. The networks will not be able to process the data in other ways than making it available. If you break someone's privacy laws you will be liable directly. Probably also a note that data on this network cannot be completely deleted for specific technical reasons.
- rectang 9y agoSo your proposal is a return to the status quo ante and unlimited exploitation of users? Not good enough. I will take the imperfect good of the GDPR as an incremental improvement over the option of abject surrender.
- woolvalley 9y agoNo the proposal is to apply the GDPR to the large organizations that can afford to implement it properly. It's not black and white ;)
- AstralStorm 9y agoGDPR is not applied indiscriminately you know. It has various responsibilities indeed depending on company and/or database size.
- tjoff 9y agoActually, it does. Thanks to GPDR you now has to opt in to allow facebook to track you in photos etc. And startups that exploit users don't really provide much of anything anyway.
- chrischen 9y agoFacebook’s harm comes from wasting your time and putting you in an echo chamber of agreeable people and agreeable thoughts. They can make it all opt-in fairly easily as a requirement for using certain features. People will blindly click and continue like normal.
- tjoff 9y agoWell, there are tons of people that use facebook to the smallest extent possible and that only because they are forced if they want to be informed of certain events etc. This is a huge step in the right direction for a lot of people.
- xg15 9y agoI think this objection sounds vague. Could you give some examples of regulations where one should talk with a lawyer before implementing?