4 ms·

And this is literally what GDPR was created for. Hoping you've blocked access to the EU so I don't happen across it :)

by amaccuish 8y ago

matte_black 8y ago
Good luck proving we're not in compliance.
austinheap 8y ago
This is exactly what startups are worried about: inane threats from EU users.
freedomben 8y ago
It is genuinely fascinating to me how different people can feel about things. I get enraged when my "government" tells me what I can and can't do with my body/money/time. If I want to snort coke all day, what business of theirs is it as long as I'm not infringing on others' rights? Likewise, if I want to give my data to a super sketchy website, why shouldn't I be able to? Obviously it's "safer" to let others make rules and force us inside the fence to keep us sheep away from the dangerous wolves out there. I do understand that perspective to some extent. However I would never trade my freedom for security. The former is not easy to regain.
- michelledepeil 8y ago
  Except they're not taking freedom away from users, they're taking freedom away from corporations. Freedom that many corporations have been abusing. This is a key difference in perspective. Your example where you "want to give your data away to a sketchy website" is not in any way representative of reality when a) the website is as ubiquitous as for instance FB, and thus in no way perceived as sketchy, and b) the user makes no conscious decision to consent (let alone "wants it").
  - freedomben 8y ago
    I think you have a decent point there, but the comment I replied to literally said: > Hoping you've blocked access to the EU so I don't happen across it :) Being glad that he doesn't have the freedom to use the site, thanks to a government law (whether a side-effect of the law or a direct effect is irrelevant, because the law brought it out just the same).
    - shabble 8y ago
      I suspect it's more in teh sense of a "Don't let the door hit you on the way out..." retort. That is, if you're offering such a service that exploits users for their data, then I would never want to use it, so it might as well be blocked, for all I care. Maybe even desirable if it was, so you don't come across it by mistake and sign up without doing proper diligence. Freedom of choice is nice, but there's an argument that putting rat-poison in food products isn't ok, even if you label it on the package.
  - mirko22 8y ago
    when you give out you data you are doing it willfully. thinking it’s a good idea to give your personal data to FB is not FBs fault, it’s yours.
- llukas 8y ago
  > However I would never trade my freedom for security So we should stop government from enforcing food safety and accept poisonings as fact of life...
  - freedomben 8y ago
    Your premise is flawed: if it was true that without government, companies would just carelessly or intentionally poison us all (not a good way to gain repeat customers btw) then I would agree with you. But obviously I disagree with your premise.
    - orf 8y ago
      > If it was true that without government companies would just poison us all (not a good way to gain repeat customers btw) Counterpoint: Cigarette companies poison you, and they found it's an amazing way to gain repeat customers.
      - freedomben 8y ago
        And they got the crap sued out of them. The lying is the problem IMHO. People know what they're getting now, but millions still choose to smoke. And why shouldn't they be able to?
      - mirko22 8y ago
        do they make people smoke? like do they MAKE you smoke? cos government MAKES me pay taxes Marlboro does not MAKE me smoke...
    - llukas 8y ago
      Companies are careless and malicious despite government and customers actions. * XIX century wants it's snake oil back * Didn't hear about China and melamine milk scandal? * Would you buy food from Amazon if it was co-mingled in current way? * VW emission scandal It is easy to be freetard when you do not get diarrhea every so often due to food that was "optimized" (like in XIX century ;)
    - 8y ago
- azernik 8y ago
  The government also prohibits you from accepting a job offer for less than minimum wage, and the general consensus is that this gives workers more power. The government isn't the only source of power and coercion; private companies are too. A lot of these regulations are the one countering the other.

And this is literally what GDPR was created for. Hoping you've blocked access to the EU so I don't happen across it :)

matte_black 8y ago

Good luck proving we're not in compliance.

austinheap 8y ago

This is exactly what startups are worried about: inane threats from EU users.

freedomben 8y ago

It is genuinely fascinating to me how different people can feel about things. I get enraged when my "government" tells me what I can and can't do with my body/money/time. If I want to snort coke all day, what business of theirs is it as long as I'm not infringing on others' rights? Likewise, if I want to give my data to a super sketchy website, why shouldn't I be able to? Obviously it's "safer" to let others make rules and force us inside the fence to keep us sheep away from the dangerous wolves out there. I do understand that perspective to some extent. However I would never trade my freedom for security. The former is not easy to regain.

michelledepeil 8y ago
Except they're not taking freedom away from users, they're taking freedom away from corporations. Freedom that many corporations have been abusing. This is a key difference in perspective. Your example where you "want to give your data away to a sketchy website" is not in any way representative of reality when a) the website is as ubiquitous as for instance FB, and thus in no way perceived as sketchy, and b) the user makes no conscious decision to consent (let alone "wants it").
- freedomben 8y ago
  I think you have a decent point there, but the comment I replied to literally said: > Hoping you've blocked access to the EU so I don't happen across it :) Being glad that he doesn't have the freedom to use the site, thanks to a government law (whether a side-effect of the law or a direct effect is irrelevant, because the law brought it out just the same).
  - shabble 8y ago
    I suspect it's more in teh sense of a "Don't let the door hit you on the way out..." retort. That is, if you're offering such a service that exploits users for their data, then I would never want to use it, so it might as well be blocked, for all I care. Maybe even desirable if it was, so you don't come across it by mistake and sign up without doing proper diligence. Freedom of choice is nice, but there's an argument that putting rat-poison in food products isn't ok, even if you label it on the package.
- mirko22 8y ago
  when you give out you data you are doing it willfully. thinking it’s a good idea to give your personal data to FB is not FBs fault, it’s yours.
llukas 8y ago
> However I would never trade my freedom for security So we should stop government from enforcing food safety and accept poisonings as fact of life...
- freedomben 8y ago
  Your premise is flawed: if it was true that without government, companies would just carelessly or intentionally poison us all (not a good way to gain repeat customers btw) then I would agree with you. But obviously I disagree with your premise.
  - orf 8y ago
    > If it was true that without government companies would just poison us all (not a good way to gain repeat customers btw) Counterpoint: Cigarette companies poison you, and they found it's an amazing way to gain repeat customers.
    - freedomben 8y ago
      And they got the crap sued out of them. The lying is the problem IMHO. People know what they're getting now, but millions still choose to smoke. And why shouldn't they be able to?
    - mirko22 8y ago
      do they make people smoke? like do they MAKE you smoke? cos government MAKES me pay taxes Marlboro does not MAKE me smoke...
  - llukas 8y ago
    Companies are careless and malicious despite government and customers actions. * XIX century wants it's snake oil back * Didn't hear about China and melamine milk scandal? * Would you buy food from Amazon if it was co-mingled in current way? * VW emission scandal It is easy to be freetard when you do not get diarrhea every so often due to food that was "optimized" (like in XIX century ;)
  - 8y ago
azernik 8y ago
The government also prohibits you from accepting a job offer for less than minimum wage, and the general consensus is that this gives workers more power. The government isn't the only source of power and coercion; private companies are too. A lot of these regulations are the one countering the other.