5 ms·

Very stringent regulation is in the interests of large businesses. They have the resources while smaller businesses do not. We've seen this in reports after GD

by ghein 8y ago

Very stringent regulation is in the interests of large businesses. They have the resources while smaller businesses do not. We've seen this in reports after GDPR go live where Google's advertising market share went up: they had the resources to demonstrate compliance as well as a better ability to get consent (google vs random ad exchange asking for your consent.. google vs a restaurant you go to a few times a year..). People announce good intentions and create laws and regulations embodying these intentions. They don't look at what the second and third order responses are likely to be, just at what they consider bad behavior and what looks to be a first order response to that. It is very, very hard to create laws and regulations that will have the actual effect that you intend but it is very easy to write laws that have good names and have superficial appeal. Whether the subject is market structure, privacy, or taxation, far too many supposedly intelligent people adopt or accept the superficial response rather than the well thought through one. You wouldn't accept that approach in your code but you're happy to accept it in national and international governance. People are then shocked that they don't obtain their desired results and argue for new, improved, superficial laws and regulations.

nerdponx 8y ago
This is true about a lot of regulations, e.g. slaughterhouse regulations in the USA. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have those regulations, or at least some version of those regulations.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > This is true about a lot of regulations Managing how the regulatory burden falls is a core part of lawmaking. GDPR fails in this respect. Complain-investigate regimes (where complaints frequently trigger a regulatory interaction) are effective. They're also among the most-onerous forms of oversight. (Second to mandatory licensing and auditing.) Add to that the power of each of the EU's twenty-eight national data regulators to interpret the rules. Result? A law that's great for Facebook and Google and terrible for almost anyone else. To wit, Facebook and Google's shares of EU advertising has risen since GDPR went into effect.
  - pnutjam 8y ago
    Cry me a river. I don't want every little startup compiling my information, and selling it once they fail.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      My complaint isn’t with the objective of the rules. It’s with its implementation. One can be totally privacy-first, retaining zero customer data, and still incur costs and risks because of GDPR.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        What risks are incurred by storing zero customer data?
        throwaway37585 8y ago
        Read again. That’s not the risk they’re referring to.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    > To wit, Facebook and Google's shares of EU advertising has risen since GDPR went into effect. Isn't this the expected result? Now only a small number of (relatively) trusted companies have my data, not multiple fly-by-nights who may or may not be trusted ALL trying to gather it. To me, that's a net gain - Google/Facebook would have got that data _anyway_, but I now have less companies trying to gather it _as well_.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  The GP is saying that a regulation’s unintended or higher-order effects can create a net negative impact on society. Why “should” such regulations exist?
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    I'd like to see at least some evidence of the "net negative impact". In the case of slaughterhouses, it impedes the local and smaller-scale (and possibly more-human) commercial slaughter of animals. But slaughterhouses should probably, in general, be regulated. I'm not sure if extant regulations are net negative or positive. But I know that their complete absence would probably be bad. It's not a matter of existence, it's a matter of implementation. I'm not sure it's net negative in the case of the GDPR. As a sibling (cousin?) poster said, good riddance. No company should be allowed to mismanage my personal data, big or small. Until I see evidence that GDPR compliance is cost prohibitive enough to suppress startup formation, I won't be convinced that the tradeoff isn't worth it.
    - ghein 8y ago
      It's VERY hard to demonstrate net negatives on second and third order effects, especially so as to convince a proponent of the first order effect. You're looking at businesses not created, features not developed, strengthening of colossal businesses (celebrated upthread), and adverse changes that aren't superficially related. The most comprehensive evidence comes from decades long comparisons of countries or differences in regulatory regimes (before and after airline and trucking deregulation in the US) and you still have epic arguments over results and effects. The other issue is philosophical. You seem to want proof that a company should exist and require extraordinary evidence against a law. I want proof that a law should exist and require extraordinary evidence against a company. As a shorthand its France vs America. You'll note that we're not using Minitel bur rather a board hosted by a VC operation who shares a mindset with the founding team of Uber.
      - throwaway37585 8y ago
        As Frédéric Bastiat said, there is that which is (easily) seen and that which is not (easily) seen. Hazlitt: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
Smart small businesses will simply try to be reasonable and ignore the more onerous parts (and especially the more onerous interpretations) of GDPR, correctly assuming that no DPA and no noyb-style NGO is going to come after them (and that if it happens, they'll likely get a warning, not a massive fine). Meanwhile, big data companies are going to be prime targets, and will be forced to either change, or start paying a significant fraction of their global revenue in fines every year until changed or bankrupt.

by ghein 8y ago

nerdponx 8y ago

This is true about a lot of regulations, e.g. slaughterhouse regulations in the USA. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have those regulations, or at least some version of those regulations.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> This is true about a lot of regulations Managing how the regulatory burden falls is a core part of lawmaking. GDPR fails in this respect. Complain-investigate regimes (where complaints frequently trigger a regulatory interaction) are effective. They're also among the most-onerous forms of oversight. (Second to mandatory licensing and auditing.) Add to that the power of each of the EU's twenty-eight national data regulators to interpret the rules. Result? A law that's great for Facebook and Google and terrible for almost anyone else. To wit, Facebook and Google's shares of EU advertising has risen since GDPR went into effect.
- pnutjam 8y ago
  Cry me a river. I don't want every little startup compiling my information, and selling it once they fail.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    My complaint isn’t with the objective of the rules. It’s with its implementation. One can be totally privacy-first, retaining zero customer data, and still incur costs and risks because of GDPR.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      What risks are incurred by storing zero customer data?
      - throwaway37585 8y ago
        Read again. That’s not the risk they’re referring to.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > To wit, Facebook and Google's shares of EU advertising has risen since GDPR went into effect. Isn't this the expected result? Now only a small number of (relatively) trusted companies have my data, not multiple fly-by-nights who may or may not be trusted ALL trying to gather it. To me, that's a net gain - Google/Facebook would have got that data _anyway_, but I now have less companies trying to gather it _as well_.
throwaway37585 8y ago
The GP is saying that a regulation’s unintended or higher-order effects can create a net negative impact on society. Why “should” such regulations exist?
- nerdponx 8y ago
  I'd like to see at least some evidence of the "net negative impact". In the case of slaughterhouses, it impedes the local and smaller-scale (and possibly more-human) commercial slaughter of animals. But slaughterhouses should probably, in general, be regulated. I'm not sure if extant regulations are net negative or positive. But I know that their complete absence would probably be bad. It's not a matter of existence, it's a matter of implementation. I'm not sure it's net negative in the case of the GDPR. As a sibling (cousin?) poster said, good riddance. No company should be allowed to mismanage my personal data, big or small. Until I see evidence that GDPR compliance is cost prohibitive enough to suppress startup formation, I won't be convinced that the tradeoff isn't worth it.
  - ghein 8y ago
    It's VERY hard to demonstrate net negatives on second and third order effects, especially so as to convince a proponent of the first order effect. You're looking at businesses not created, features not developed, strengthening of colossal businesses (celebrated upthread), and adverse changes that aren't superficially related. The most comprehensive evidence comes from decades long comparisons of countries or differences in regulatory regimes (before and after airline and trucking deregulation in the US) and you still have epic arguments over results and effects. The other issue is philosophical. You seem to want proof that a company should exist and require extraordinary evidence against a law. I want proof that a law should exist and require extraordinary evidence against a company. As a shorthand its France vs America. You'll note that we're not using Minitel bur rather a board hosted by a VC operation who shares a mindset with the founding team of Uber.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      As Frédéric Bastiat said, there is that which is (easily) seen and that which is not (easily) seen. Hazlitt: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago

Smart small businesses will simply try to be reasonable and ignore the more onerous parts (and especially the more onerous interpretations) of GDPR, correctly assuming that no DPA and no noyb-style NGO is going to come after them (and that if it happens, they'll likely get a warning, not a massive fine). Meanwhile, big data companies are going to be prime targets, and will be forced to either change, or start paying a significant fraction of their global revenue in fines every year until changed or bankrupt.