4 ms·

> 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) w

> 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.
      - downandout 9y ago
        My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players. And yet here you are defending GDPR.
semperdark 9y ago
It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law. You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z. Am I allowed to even open a port to a server on my local machine that allows users to voluntarily enter some information and does something with it, without being subjected to the full force of the legal system? I have some experience with the US medical software industry, and this sort of feature-checklist regulation doesn't improve anything. All it does is lock in the existing players and prevent any innovations that aren't explicitly outlined in the law.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law. > You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z. If you stop for a bit you'll realize that most things in society work like that. It's called regulation. Once you get used to it you'll stop being astounded and wonder how things were ever done differently.
  - semperdark 9y ago
    Right, that's fine in the real world, where the existence of something affects you. Real objects take up physical space, and can be noisy, polluting, or inaccessible. Nobody is forcing you to look at, interact with, or even acknowledge the existence of my local web server. There is no stronger sense of the word "voluntary" than the one that can be used to describe web services. My service doesn't even exist to you, unless you explicitly choose to engage with it. You, on the other hand, believe that it should not be allowed to exist for other people (at legal gunpoint!), unless it conforms to the features that you believe it should have. This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements.
    - romwell 9y ago
      >This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements. Like fire code? :)

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.
    - downandout 9y ago
      My point was NOT that it's good to have laws that lock-in entrenched players. And yet here you are defending GDPR.

semperdark 9y ago

It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law. You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z. Am I allowed to even open a port to a server on my local machine that allows users to voluntarily enter some information and does something with it, without being subjected to the full force of the legal system? I have some experience with the US medical software industry, and this sort of feature-checklist regulation doesn't improve anything. All it does is lock in the existing players and prevent any innovations that aren't explicitly outlined in the law.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law. > You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z. If you stop for a bit you'll realize that most things in society work like that. It's called regulation. Once you get used to it you'll stop being astounded and wonder how things were ever done differently.
- semperdark 9y ago
  Right, that's fine in the real world, where the existence of something affects you. Real objects take up physical space, and can be noisy, polluting, or inaccessible. Nobody is forcing you to look at, interact with, or even acknowledge the existence of my local web server. There is no stronger sense of the word "voluntary" than the one that can be used to describe web services. My service doesn't even exist to you, unless you explicitly choose to engage with it. You, on the other hand, believe that it should not be allowed to exist for other people (at legal gunpoint!), unless it conforms to the features that you believe it should have. This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements.
  - romwell 9y ago
    >This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements. Like fire code? :)