4 ms·

But there is not going to be a pulic outcry, I was asking people around, also those that were using the "I have nothing to hide" phrase in past and they are all

by _o_ 8y ago

But there is not going to be a pulic outcry, I was asking people around, also those that were using the "I have nothing to hide" phrase in past and they are all satisfied with the GDPR. People want this, also in US, but there it will take some time to adopt some law like GDPR as US goverment is working in interest of industry, not people.

downandout 8y ago
Nothing remotely close to GDPR will ever pass in the US. There will likely be some privacy reform, but it won't have vague wording and $20M fines for your neighbor's kid's blog.
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  So exactly like GDPR. Got it.
taysic 8y ago
People don't want this is in the US. At least I don't. I would be strongly opposed to it as GDPR violates the rights of a person to pay for a product through personalized, targeted advertising.
- krapp 8y ago
  >I would be strongly opposed to it as GDPR violates the rights of a person to pay for a product through personalized, targeted advertising. How so? GDPR doesn't make personalized, targeted advertising illegal, rather it gives you (the targeted individual) the right to know how your data is being collected and sed, and to opt out of that collection if you want. If you want to continue paying for content with your identity, fair enough, but not everyone does.
  - taysic 8y ago
    Simply because it forces companies to give the same service away without personalized ads. As long as the options are clear, most people would choose non-personalized because there is nothing they get out of handing their data over. So under this system a user who doesn't mind personalized ads doesn't have the option to 'pay'. They have the ability to 'donate' their personal information but there would be no reason to do this. Now if GDPR had allowed companies to either choose personalized ads or pay for the content, that would have been different.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >So under this system a user who doesn't mind personalized ads doesn't have the option to 'pay'. They have the ability to 'donate' their personal information but there would be no reason to do this. If a web business can still remain profitable with personalized ads being optional, then the targeting behind those ads was never paying for that content to begin with, it was always a 'donation.'
      - taysic 8y ago
        Not sure what 'can still function' means. If a business is unable to make enough of a profit from its new business model, it simply shuts down. It was certainly not always a 'donation'.
        krapp 8y ago
        >Not sure what 'can still function' means. Sorry, I've edited for clarity. >If a business is unable to make enough of a profit from its new business model, it simply shuts down. It was certainly not always a 'donation'. What's debatable is whether targeted advertising is necessary for a business to maintain that profit. The GDPR suggests it isn't.
        Mirioron 8y ago
        >What's debatable is whether targeted advertising is necessary for a business to maintain that profit. The GDPR suggests it isn't. You're right to a degree. You're right, because ad revenue from the EU is a lot lower than the US. Even if targeted ads in the EU aren't a thing, then a service that mostly gets US ad clicks and ad views will be able to handle it just fine. However, this means that EU viewers/readers will be treated as second class citizens.
djsumdog 8y ago
I don't think the US can constitutionally adopt a law like this. Just the Right to Be Forgotten by itself violates the 1st amendment (and the EFF opposes it as it's generally used in Europe for censorship .. as we saw recently with the pulled NPR article).

by _o_ 8y ago

downandout 8y ago

Nothing remotely close to GDPR will ever pass in the US. There will likely be some privacy reform, but it won't have vague wording and $20M fines for your neighbor's kid's blog.

TheForumTroll 8y ago
So exactly like GDPR. Got it.

taysic 8y ago

People don't want this is in the US. At least I don't. I would be strongly opposed to it as GDPR violates the rights of a person to pay for a product through personalized, targeted advertising.

krapp 8y ago
>I would be strongly opposed to it as GDPR violates the rights of a person to pay for a product through personalized, targeted advertising. How so? GDPR doesn't make personalized, targeted advertising illegal, rather it gives you (the targeted individual) the right to know how your data is being collected and sed, and to opt out of that collection if you want. If you want to continue paying for content with your identity, fair enough, but not everyone does.
- taysic 8y ago
  Simply because it forces companies to give the same service away without personalized ads. As long as the options are clear, most people would choose non-personalized because there is nothing they get out of handing their data over. So under this system a user who doesn't mind personalized ads doesn't have the option to 'pay'. They have the ability to 'donate' their personal information but there would be no reason to do this. Now if GDPR had allowed companies to either choose personalized ads or pay for the content, that would have been different.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >So under this system a user who doesn't mind personalized ads doesn't have the option to 'pay'. They have the ability to 'donate' their personal information but there would be no reason to do this. If a web business can still remain profitable with personalized ads being optional, then the targeting behind those ads was never paying for that content to begin with, it was always a 'donation.'
    - taysic 8y ago
      Not sure what 'can still function' means. If a business is unable to make enough of a profit from its new business model, it simply shuts down. It was certainly not always a 'donation'.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >Not sure what 'can still function' means. Sorry, I've edited for clarity. >If a business is unable to make enough of a profit from its new business model, it simply shuts down. It was certainly not always a 'donation'. What's debatable is whether targeted advertising is necessary for a business to maintain that profit. The GDPR suggests it isn't.
        Mirioron 8y ago
        >What's debatable is whether targeted advertising is necessary for a business to maintain that profit. The GDPR suggests it isn't. You're right to a degree. You're right, because ad revenue from the EU is a lot lower than the US. Even if targeted ads in the EU aren't a thing, then a service that mostly gets US ad clicks and ad views will be able to handle it just fine. However, this means that EU viewers/readers will be treated as second class citizens.

djsumdog 8y ago

I don't think the US can constitutionally adopt a law like this. Just the Right to Be Forgotten by itself violates the 1st amendment (and the EFF opposes it as it's generally used in Europe for censorship .. as we saw recently with the pulled NPR article).