3 ms·

I fail to see why. Without clauses like this, you'd be at the same place you were before, "Either agree to all of our completely invasive and probably unrelated

I fail to see why. Without clauses like this, you'd be at the same place you were before, "Either agree to all of our completely invasive and probably unrelated terms, or go pound sand." The GDPR is shifting the balance of power back so that users do have some bargaining, not just the take it or leave it that's been so prevalent for so long.

ovao 9y ago
I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years. Things have been done against the interest of user privacy by burying the explanations in long privacy policies filled with legalese, and in the general underhandedness of data exchange between multiple parties. The inability to remove data you've provided to a website, too, I think is problematic in ways. I'm a big proponent of user control, and a similarly big proponent of businesses taking much greater responsibility for the data they collect (my data was part of the Equifax breach, so I certainly get it). I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that. If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever.
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  You lose the power to participate in Facebook-only groups, which are surprisingly prevalent in some places. I have very limited access to two communities here in Montreal that I'd otherwise get a lot of value out of, because their only online communication system is via Facebook. I've told Facebook to pound sand for roughly their entire existence - never had an account even though I had the chance right after they expand beyond Harvard - and am considering whether life circumstances will increasingly force me (in practical rather than literal terms) to sign up. A company in that semi-mandatory position deserves lots of binding rules to protect the rights of unwilling users, just as is true for electric companies since you rarely have much choice there. Plus, I don't think Facebook's massive wall of several huge interlinked policies with soft-pedaled descriptions of what they do meets either of your A and B criteria, especially not when it's modally interrupting the user.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years." What? Yes it has. "I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that." I'm not, mainly because business has been shown that they absolutely cannot be trusted with that. They have abused the privilege, and so they had their toy taken away. If you want to be upset at someone for that, blame the businesses for not reigning in themselves, not the governments for doing what their populaces wanted. Not to mention, A and B almost never, ever exist. "If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever." You've lost all power in that relationship, because you have no power to bargain. You have no power to negotiate. And while you'll gladly go pound sand, not everyone is in a position to do so.
  - ovao 9y ago
    Can you give me an example of someone who isn’t in a position to — in simple terms — take their business elsewhere when it comes to dealing with some sort of online company with whom they’re voluntarily sharing data?
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      Lack of alternatives, for one. Second would be someone for whom the rest of their social network is on Facebook, and they use Facebook as a primary communications source. I know nobody would be willing to sign up for another network or use another messenger just because I don't want to use FB messenger. I cannot get behind the idea that ostracizing yourself from there rest of your friends and family is an acceptable thing. Turn it around; why should Facebook be allowed to have "take it or leave it" terms? Why should we as a society allow that? And don't just say, "It's their business;" I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Why should users not have the control over their data that the GDPR brings?
      - ovao 9y ago

ovao 9y ago

I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years. Things have been done against the interest of user privacy by burying the explanations in long privacy policies filled with legalese, and in the general underhandedness of data exchange between multiple parties. The inability to remove data you've provided to a website, too, I think is problematic in ways. I'm a big proponent of user control, and a similarly big proponent of businesses taking much greater responsibility for the data they collect (my data was part of the Equifax breach, so I certainly get it). I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that. If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever.

jkaplowitz 9y ago
You lose the power to participate in Facebook-only groups, which are surprisingly prevalent in some places. I have very limited access to two communities here in Montreal that I'd otherwise get a lot of value out of, because their only online communication system is via Facebook. I've told Facebook to pound sand for roughly their entire existence - never had an account even though I had the chance right after they expand beyond Harvard - and am considering whether life circumstances will increasingly force me (in practical rather than literal terms) to sign up. A company in that semi-mandatory position deserves lots of binding rules to protect the rights of unwilling users, just as is true for electric companies since you rarely have much choice there. Plus, I don't think Facebook's massive wall of several huge interlinked policies with soft-pedaled descriptions of what they do meets either of your A and B criteria, especially not when it's modally interrupting the user.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years." What? Yes it has. "I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that." I'm not, mainly because business has been shown that they absolutely cannot be trusted with that. They have abused the privilege, and so they had their toy taken away. If you want to be upset at someone for that, blame the businesses for not reigning in themselves, not the governments for doing what their populaces wanted. Not to mention, A and B almost never, ever exist. "If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever." You've lost all power in that relationship, because you have no power to bargain. You have no power to negotiate. And while you'll gladly go pound sand, not everyone is in a position to do so.
- ovao 9y ago
  Can you give me an example of someone who isn’t in a position to — in simple terms — take their business elsewhere when it comes to dealing with some sort of online company with whom they’re voluntarily sharing data?
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Lack of alternatives, for one. Second would be someone for whom the rest of their social network is on Facebook, and they use Facebook as a primary communications source. I know nobody would be willing to sign up for another network or use another messenger just because I don't want to use FB messenger. I cannot get behind the idea that ostracizing yourself from there rest of your friends and family is an acceptable thing. Turn it around; why should Facebook be allowed to have "take it or leave it" terms? Why should we as a society allow that? And don't just say, "It's their business;" I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Why should users not have the control over their data that the GDPR brings?
    - ovao 9y ago