6 ms·

> Instagram has become the dominant image sharing social network with over 800 million users. It shouldn’t need to lock up users’ data in order to keep them aro

> Instagram has become the dominant image sharing social network with over 800 million users. It shouldn’t need to lock up users’ data in order to keep them around. > That's fine for Instagram, but what about startups that want to compete and find that users can now build up collections of photos and videos (perhaps using proprietary filters that make a given application popular for a while) at their expense and then instantly abandon their platforms? GDPR is great, or at least not a negative for large companies, but a disaster for startups. So what are you saying? That startups should have the right to lock up their users just so they can have a business? No, sorry. If your business depends on "locking up users", maybe you shouldn't have a business.

downandout 9y ago
So what are you saying? That startups should have the right to lock up their users just so they can have a business? I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > Startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts. Do you realize how backwards that is? All throughout history it's been the case that circumstances change. Maybe what was a viable business to start before, isn't now. Well, those that took the chance when this was allowed are banking on it, but now no one else can. Your argument is: person X exploited bad thing Z before, so we must continue to allow back thing Z just in case person Y also wants to exploit it. No, that's completely backwards. Some people got rich off slavery, so we shouldn't make slavery illegal because my startup wants to take advantage of it too. /s
  - downandout 9y ago
    You're comparing the inability to easily move pictures from one service to another to slavery? That's quite the leap, though not unexpected on HN these days. Anyway, I hope you enjoy Instagram if you are in a GDPR-affected country, because no competitor will ever emerge as a result of this law. They'll have all of your data, and you'll have to agree to it being analyzed in whatever way they choose because there is not and never will be another service to go to (which renders this entire point of this law moot).
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      > You're comparing the inability to easily move pictures from one service to another to slavery? That's quite the leap, though not unexpected on HN these days. Classic "you're comparing X and Y??!??!" distraction. I'm saying that your argument applies to both, which is does. You say "you're comparing??!" so you can avoid addressing my point. You know, I've made a lot of money in advertising doing things that these days you couldn't get away with. I'm not crying that the opportunities are gone. Some of us adapt to a changing world, some of us cry about how great the past was. It's clear which one you are. > Anyway, I hope you enjoy Instagram if you are in a GDPR-affected country Oh my god, I'm so affected for having the option to delete my data. /s
      - downandout 9y ago
        >You say "you're comparing??!" so you can avoid addressing my point. Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it.
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it. You're being dishonest. My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players. It was that there are bigger things to consider than each one's business model, and that just because some people took advantage of something in the past isn't a reason not to correct something, and that when things change some businesses die others are born new, and it's always been like that. It's called capitalism, works quite well. But I was saying: you're being dishonest, wittingly misrepresenting my point, and so I have no further interest here. Good luck.
- politician 9y ago
  > I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. We don't let people build homes or other buildings as they see fit because over time we've realized that the failure of one building can adversely affect the neighborhood. We don't let businesses handle their financials in any way they see fit because over time we've realized that using a generally accepted set of accounting principles helps avoid cascading financial disasters. Now, honestly, how can you say with a straight face that we should let businesses manage data in any way they see fit because it's "their platform"? Nonsense, we have an obligation to regulate how data is collected, processed, and used or sold to protect society against the adverse effects of data that is used to abuse.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    Thank you, all great examples. Gee, people can be quite blinded when you challenge their worldview a tiny bit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - semperdark 9y ago
    Only public companies are required to respect GAAP, and they choose to do so because they want access to a regulated market. Is a building on Pluto subject to the same building codes? If my server spontaneously combusts, should I warn those with IPs near mine that theirs may catch fire? You have no obligation to visit my web service, enter data into it, or interact with it. It takes up no space, and you have no "passing" interactions with it. The contention is that others should not be allowed to use my web service, unless it provides you certain features. I'm believe we should support privacy on the web, but this is not the way to do it.
    - politician 9y ago
      Well, remember, what is actually happening here is that your web service is deploying code, including malware, onto my computer. The malware payload steals all of my personal data unbeknownst to me, and sends it to random 3rd parties. So, that's pretty nasty, and yes, I want it to be regulated.
cft 9y ago
So you would rather have only 2-3 giant internet companies that obey GDPR, than a web of smaller sites like internet used to be? I find it a bit arrogant to think of users as so dumb that they cannot choose for themselves which site to use. A better law would be one that simply required a disclosure and transparency of what a company does with the user data.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > So you would rather have only 2-3 giant internet companies that obey GDPR, than a web of smaller sites like internet used to be? I prefer a web of smaller sites... What's preventing anyone from building their blog? I still read the same blogs on my RSS roll as I've always done. How does GDPR stop any of this? > I find it a bit arrogant to think of users as so dumb that they cannot choose for themselves which site to use. Have you been on the internet? People are fucking stupid.
  - idoh 9y ago
    Just as an FYI it is not trivial for a small site to comply with the GDPR unless it is really simple, like a static web page with no cookies and no third party libraries or javascript.
    - cft 9y ago
      I noticed that downvote, instead of a response or an argument. HN is no longer a place for people like you and me. Since about 1 - 2 years ago. I am increasingly switching to read only mode and to slashdot.
  - cft 9y ago
    If you have a blog you probably want comments. If you have comments you need a banning mechanism and IP logs to avoid ban evasion. A hacker or a spammer would send you a SAR or a Right to Be Forgotten request, to purge his IP and spam history to prevent you from mitigation of his spam. You can hire a lawyer to oppose that request. The lawyer has to individually weigh circumstances in each case, to justify either a denial of request or limiting its scope. Some of the requests will be fake, some will be real. You will have to do dilligence on each. Does your small blog have a budget for this?

downandout 9y ago

So what are you saying? That startups should have the right to lock up their users just so they can have a business? I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> Startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. Because of GDPR, no startup (at least those that accept EU traffic) will ever achieve the social lock-in that Instagram has. Instagram built their user base in an era where it was difficult for average users to get their pictures out. Did your startup come up with a new set of filters that make photos go really viral? Awesome! Users will just make it in your app and then export it to Instagram, where people will actually see it. You'll go bankrupt...but Instagram usage will increase as a result of your efforts. Do you realize how backwards that is? All throughout history it's been the case that circumstances change. Maybe what was a viable business to start before, isn't now. Well, those that took the chance when this was allowed are banking on it, but now no one else can. Your argument is: person X exploited bad thing Z before, so we must continue to allow back thing Z just in case person Y also wants to exploit it. No, that's completely backwards. Some people got rich off slavery, so we shouldn't make slavery illegal because my startup wants to take advantage of it too. /s
- downandout 9y ago
  You're comparing the inability to easily move pictures from one service to another to slavery? That's quite the leap, though not unexpected on HN these days. Anyway, I hope you enjoy Instagram if you are in a GDPR-affected country, because no competitor will ever emerge as a result of this law. They'll have all of your data, and you'll have to agree to it being analyzed in whatever way they choose because there is not and never will be another service to go to (which renders this entire point of this law moot).
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > You're comparing the inability to easily move pictures from one service to another to slavery? That's quite the leap, though not unexpected on HN these days. Classic "you're comparing X and Y??!??!" distraction. I'm saying that your argument applies to both, which is does. You say "you're comparing??!" so you can avoid addressing my point. You know, I've made a lot of money in advertising doing things that these days you couldn't get away with. I'm not crying that the opportunities are gone. Some of us adapt to a changing world, some of us cry about how great the past was. It's clear which one you are. > Anyway, I hope you enjoy Instagram if you are in a GDPR-affected country Oh my god, I'm so affected for having the option to delete my data. /s
    - downandout 9y ago
      >You say "you're comparing??!" so you can avoid addressing my point. Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it.
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Why would I address your absurd “point” that it’s good to have laws that lock-in entrenched competitors and stifle competition and innovation from new startups? I just assumed people would read and instantly dismiss such an absurd notion, as I did. I guess I saw no “point” in it. You're being dishonest. My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players. It was that there are bigger things to consider than each one's business model, and that just because some people took advantage of something in the past isn't a reason not to correct something, and that when things change some businesses die others are born new, and it's always been like that. It's called capitalism, works quite well. But I was saying: you're being dishonest, wittingly misrepresenting my point, and so I have no further interest here. Good luck.
politician 9y ago
> I'm saying that startups should have the right to engineer their platforms in the way that they see fit. We don't let people build homes or other buildings as they see fit because over time we've realized that the failure of one building can adversely affect the neighborhood. We don't let businesses handle their financials in any way they see fit because over time we've realized that using a generally accepted set of accounting principles helps avoid cascading financial disasters. Now, honestly, how can you say with a straight face that we should let businesses manage data in any way they see fit because it's "their platform"? Nonsense, we have an obligation to regulate how data is collected, processed, and used or sold to protect society against the adverse effects of data that is used to abuse.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  Thank you, all great examples. Gee, people can be quite blinded when you challenge their worldview a tiny bit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- semperdark 9y ago
  Only public companies are required to respect GAAP, and they choose to do so because they want access to a regulated market. Is a building on Pluto subject to the same building codes? If my server spontaneously combusts, should I warn those with IPs near mine that theirs may catch fire? You have no obligation to visit my web service, enter data into it, or interact with it. It takes up no space, and you have no "passing" interactions with it. The contention is that others should not be allowed to use my web service, unless it provides you certain features. I'm believe we should support privacy on the web, but this is not the way to do it.
  - politician 9y ago
    Well, remember, what is actually happening here is that your web service is deploying code, including malware, onto my computer. The malware payload steals all of my personal data unbeknownst to me, and sends it to random 3rd parties. So, that's pretty nasty, and yes, I want it to be regulated.

cft 9y ago

So you would rather have only 2-3 giant internet companies that obey GDPR, than a web of smaller sites like internet used to be? I find it a bit arrogant to think of users as so dumb that they cannot choose for themselves which site to use. A better law would be one that simply required a disclosure and transparency of what a company does with the user data.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> So you would rather have only 2-3 giant internet companies that obey GDPR, than a web of smaller sites like internet used to be? I prefer a web of smaller sites... What's preventing anyone from building their blog? I still read the same blogs on my RSS roll as I've always done. How does GDPR stop any of this? > I find it a bit arrogant to think of users as so dumb that they cannot choose for themselves which site to use. Have you been on the internet? People are fucking stupid.
- idoh 9y ago
  Just as an FYI it is not trivial for a small site to comply with the GDPR unless it is really simple, like a static web page with no cookies and no third party libraries or javascript.
  - cft 9y ago
    I noticed that downvote, instead of a response or an argument. HN is no longer a place for people like you and me. Since about 1 - 2 years ago. I am increasingly switching to read only mode and to slashdot.
- cft 9y ago
  If you have a blog you probably want comments. If you have comments you need a banning mechanism and IP logs to avoid ban evasion. A hacker or a spammer would send you a SAR or a Right to Be Forgotten request, to purge his IP and spam history to prevent you from mitigation of his spam. You can hire a lawyer to oppose that request. The lawyer has to individually weigh circumstances in each case, to justify either a denial of request or limiting its scope. Some of the requests will be fake, some will be real. You will have to do dilligence on each. Does your small blog have a budget for this?