4 ms·
> Much better. Is it? It's a lot of bloviating about love and kindness and positivity that dances around the point a lot. It implies, instead of being explici
by Kalium 8y ago
> Much better.
Is it? It's a lot of bloviating about love and kindness and positivity that dances around the point a lot. It implies, instead of being explicit. It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely.
It's poor communication. For the same reasons, it's great PR material.
> But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week.
I imagine that for a lot of really small shops, what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years.
> Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could?
Maybe! Depends on the company, I should think. In some cases, I'm completely certain that you're absolutely right and they've been knowingly breaking the law for years because they can and there were no consequences.
For others, it's possible that the situation may be more subtle. The costs in time and money and opportunity costs to determine how compliant they are or need to be might be daunting or dwarf any reasonable forecast of revenue from EU users.
It's possible that not all scenarios might not be quite as simple as having nothing to fear so long as you are doing nothing wrong.
- jacquesm 8y ago> what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years. That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. That the law got ignored we can agree on.
- Kalium 8y ago> That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct! Please accept my deepest apologies for being unclear. Until May 25, GDRP which has been law for years did not take full effect. It's possible that some people made choices based around which laws are in full effect, rather than what is law, for reasons that might at times be other than negligence or malice. Again, please accept my apologies for being unclear. Please let me know if there's anything else I can clarify!
- jilnji 8y ago> It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely. And your point is? Customers appreciate when you consider their feelings. Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too.
- Kalium 8y ago> And your point is? Please accept my apologies. I was under the impression that we were collectively discussing an issue of substance and import to us, rather than authoring customer-focused communications. It's my opinion that the writing style appropriate for being maximally nice to customers is inefficient, time-consuming, inexact, and wasteful in other contexts. I'm sorry if I failed you by being insufficiently clear previously. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for this egregious oversight. > Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too. You're right! You are without question correct that kind words should be followed with kind actions. Yet, it might be worth mentioning that kind actions can have costs measured in time, funds, resources, and opportunity costs. It's possible that in some incredibly unfortunate scenarios, this might result in actions being considered that some might see or choose to characterize as being perhaps a bit less kind than they could be. You're still right, of course. Kind actions should follow kind words.