3 ms·

Indeed. And the prohibition on raw milk does not ban cheese. Many cheeses from France are still available, because they do not involve raw milk. The EU has pa

Indeed. And the prohibition on raw milk does not ban cheese. Many cheeses from France are still available, because they do not involve raw milk. The EU has passed a law, perhaps it is a worthwhile law. This is one of the consequences. The ban on raw milk in cheese making exists thanks to (presumably) the best intentions, and the end result is that there are many cheeses I would like to buy, that I cannot. An American (unlike me) who supports such a ban rejoices in the fact that we are protected from these dangerous french cheeses. Perhaps you rejoice that you are protected from the dangerous GDPR non-compliant Monal.

pvg 8y ago
Running further with a bad analogy doesn't make the analogy any better or more relevant to the GP comment.
- fcbrooklyn 8y ago
  Apologies, I genuinely don't understand this critique.
  - pvg 8y ago
    GDRP doesn't ban the milk from which messengers are churned at the messenger mills either.
    - fcbrooklyn 8y ago
      Still in the dark mate. I'm sorry, maybe it's me, maybe it's you, but we seem to be speaking a different language.
      - pvg 8y ago
        It's you. The original comment says 'The author of Monal misunderstands/misrepresents the regulation and is throwing a silly tizzy'. To which you say 'some laws ban some things. also, cheese is made of milk'. These things are true but not related to the GDRP or messengers.
        monkeywork 8y ago
        ... unsure if troll or just slow. parent was giving an example of how Monal isn't "throwing a silly tizzy" ... instead they have deemed the cost of complying with the regulations (all the items listed in the article) not worth the reward, much like how raw milk cheese companies decided to not sell in America because it was not worth the cost to comply (change practices, open different facility) with the regulations. The point being that doing that cost / benefit break down is totally reasonable and it's not "throwing a silly tizzy" to decide if you want to engage in a market that is increasing your costs beyond what you think you'll get in return. None of this has any judgement on the value/reason/justification of the regulation - simply it increased costs more than this company thought they could get back out of being compliant there so they removed themselves from that market.
        pvg 8y ago
        The original comment is about the proportionality of the response, the choice the author is making and what the commenter thinks about it. When something is banned outright, there is no choice and no proportionality. So, no, it's not particularly responsive nor analogous.
        monkeywork 8y ago
        Same as the ban on the cheese wasn't a ban on "cheese" it was a ban on "cheese made with this manner" the regulations being shown here aren't a ban on "collecting/using personal information" it's a ban on "collecting/using personal information this manner" Again cost / benefit is always a valid choice to operate somewhere.
        pvg 8y ago
        The conversation was about whether the response was proportionate to (what the commenter felt was) a small imposition. You can't just change the degree of imposition from a small one to a really severe one and then claim it's 'the same'. It's only the same if you possess the enviable mental quickness to find not-the-same things the same. You're right that I don't. If you cancel an appointment because you stubbed your toe, many people will consider that response unreasonable. If you did it because a pterodactyl flew in and bit off your head, lightning thought process and all, fewer people would.
mpweiher 8y ago
> the prohibition on raw milk does not ban cheese. It bans "raw-milk cheese", which is a distinct kind of product, not one way of many to make a particular product ("cheese"). If you ban raw milk, you ban certain types of product entirely, and there is no workaround. It would be like saying a prohibition on planes does not ban automobiles, and after all, both are a kind of vehicle. True, but not really relevant. Back to the GDPR case, it's closer to a producer of pasteurized-milk-cheese saying they are going to get out of the cheese business altogether because of the ban on raw-milk-cheese, and labeling their cheese as such and documenting however briefly that the cheese is made out of pasteurized milk is just too much effort, and they are afraid of being sued by people claiming it is raw-milk-cheese. Whatever.
- esrauch 8y ago
  No analogy is perfect. In this case, there are questions that legitimately have no definitive answer (like what is "large scale"), so it is more like the cheese maker genuinely doesn't know whether their milk would be audited as raw-milk or not, and even if they consult with a lawyer they still don't have confidence that they would know.

pvg 8y ago

Running further with a bad analogy doesn't make the analogy any better or more relevant to the GP comment.

fcbrooklyn 8y ago
Apologies, I genuinely don't understand this critique.
- pvg 8y ago
  GDRP doesn't ban the milk from which messengers are churned at the messenger mills either.
  - fcbrooklyn 8y ago
    Still in the dark mate. I'm sorry, maybe it's me, maybe it's you, but we seem to be speaking a different language.
    - pvg 8y ago
      It's you. The original comment says 'The author of Monal misunderstands/misrepresents the regulation and is throwing a silly tizzy'. To which you say 'some laws ban some things. also, cheese is made of milk'. These things are true but not related to the GDRP or messengers.
      - monkeywork 8y ago
        ... unsure if troll or just slow. parent was giving an example of how Monal isn't "throwing a silly tizzy" ... instead they have deemed the cost of complying with the regulations (all the items listed in the article) not worth the reward, much like how raw milk cheese companies decided to not sell in America because it was not worth the cost to comply (change practices, open different facility) with the regulations. The point being that doing that cost / benefit break down is totally reasonable and it's not "throwing a silly tizzy" to decide if you want to engage in a market that is increasing your costs beyond what you think you'll get in return. None of this has any judgement on the value/reason/justification of the regulation - simply it increased costs more than this company thought they could get back out of being compliant there so they removed themselves from that market.
        pvg 8y ago
        The original comment is about the proportionality of the response, the choice the author is making and what the commenter thinks about it. When something is banned outright, there is no choice and no proportionality. So, no, it's not particularly responsive nor analogous.
        monkeywork 8y ago
        Same as the ban on the cheese wasn't a ban on "cheese" it was a ban on "cheese made with this manner" the regulations being shown here aren't a ban on "collecting/using personal information" it's a ban on "collecting/using personal information this manner" Again cost / benefit is always a valid choice to operate somewhere.
        pvg 8y ago
        The conversation was about whether the response was proportionate to (what the commenter felt was) a small imposition. You can't just change the degree of imposition from a small one to a really severe one and then claim it's 'the same'. It's only the same if you possess the enviable mental quickness to find not-the-same things the same. You're right that I don't. If you cancel an appointment because you stubbed your toe, many people will consider that response unreasonable. If you did it because a pterodactyl flew in and bit off your head, lightning thought process and all, fewer people would.

mpweiher 8y ago

> the prohibition on raw milk does not ban cheese. It bans "raw-milk cheese", which is a distinct kind of product, not one way of many to make a particular product ("cheese"). If you ban raw milk, you ban certain types of product entirely, and there is no workaround. It would be like saying a prohibition on planes does not ban automobiles, and after all, both are a kind of vehicle. True, but not really relevant. Back to the GDPR case, it's closer to a producer of pasteurized-milk-cheese saying they are going to get out of the cheese business altogether because of the ban on raw-milk-cheese, and labeling their cheese as such and documenting however briefly that the cheese is made out of pasteurized milk is just too much effort, and they are afraid of being sued by people claiming it is raw-milk-cheese. Whatever.

esrauch 8y ago
No analogy is perfect. In this case, there are questions that legitimately have no definitive answer (like what is "large scale"), so it is more like the cheese maker genuinely doesn't know whether their milk would be audited as raw-milk or not, and even if they consult with a lawyer they still don't have confidence that they would know.