4 ms·

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.
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    There are literally no costs for complying if you sell or give away a messenger app, unless you're leaving everything unencrypted or collect tons of unrelated private data, too. If they sell private information gathered from that messenger app to undisclosed third parties, then there may be additional costs of compliance. Maybe this developer is complaining because he's running a nefarious business model? In that case it might indeed be easiest for him to shut down his business in the EU.

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.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  There are literally no costs for complying if you sell or give away a messenger app, unless you're leaving everything unencrypted or collect tons of unrelated private data, too. If they sell private information gathered from that messenger app to undisclosed third parties, then there may be additional costs of compliance. Maybe this developer is complaining because he's running a nefarious business model? In that case it might indeed be easiest for him to shut down his business in the EU.