6 ms·

Just the mere fact that the EU government can be so technically inept as to draft and circulate such a legislation makes me totally distrust its intentions.

by cft 8y ago

zavi 8y ago
I'm getting GDPR flashbacks.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  GDPR benefited citizens and hurt big companies, article 13 benefits big companies and hurts everyone else
  - sandov 8y ago
    Big companies are made by citizens. GDPR hurt everyone.
  - sfifs 8y ago
    GDPR is helping US internet giants and squelching smaller players. I work in the media space and can see where advertiser money is flowing. Advertisers who had previously spread their money supporting smaller publishers including European publishers are now concentrating it in walled gardens to limit any potential liability reasoning that the walled gardens will better be able to handle any arising litigation through their bottomless cash reserves :-)
    - sincerely 8y ago
      If the “smaller players” aren’t willing to the take the reasonable steps to protect user data that would cause them to not be sued, then I’m fine with that.
      - sfifs 8y ago
        I believe you are missing the point of the comment. Even if smaller players take all super duper steps to protect user data, advertisers have no real way of knowing if they are in fact compliant whereas they have a simple way of looking at the published balance sheets of the big players and seeing the huge cash pile and armies of lawyers. The scare caused by activists weilding "nightmare letters" doesn't help. Also there's a body of thought in legal circles that even vendor chains needs to be evaluated which is causing advertisers to be wary. Far simpler to just throw money at the biggies who will deal with this. As usual, the smart money will be in the certification industry that will inevitably come up to tax the mid sized players while the small publishers will die out.
        bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        Either that or new small players will spring up that do not base their business on the user as a commodity.
        rmah 8y ago
        Problem is, those players will still incur the compliance costs. The GDPR rules are not simply penalties for bad behavior. They mandate proscriptive actions companies must take, policies they need to design, services they must perform on demand, etc. whether the company is engaging in bad behavior or not.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I think the basis of GP's comment is the bias a lot of GDPR supporters - myself included - have: we'd like to see the entire advertising industry die. So even if the effects hit smaller publishers more than the large ones, as long as it causes enough damage to the whole business model and incentivizes people to look for alternatives, it's a step in the right direction.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > even if the effects hit smaller publishers more than the large ones, as long as it causes enough damage to the whole business model and incentivizes people to look for alternatives, it's a step in the right direction Remember the adage “divide and conquer”? If you want to destroy something, consolidating its power base (like GDPR does to advertising in Europe) is a poor first move.
      - TJSomething 8y ago
        I think the issue here is that advertisers are not willing to evaluate if clients can protect user data unless large sums of money are offered up front. And if you don't profit from a website and just want to place advertisements to keep the lights on, you don't have that kind of money.
      - adventured 8y ago
        GDPR is an EU mandated protection for the US advertising giants. It guaranteed EU companies can never challenge them in the ad market. It guarantees the EU can never produce a Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, Google, Facebook, YouTube, or any other consumer advertising platform of consequence. Meanwhile, the US ad market will continue to produce an infinite bounty of vast, expanding profit, filling the coffers of the US giants. Those giants will then leverage that to enter / operate in the EU (even if it requires subsidy from the US profit machine), comply with GDPR, and perpetuate their dominance.
        ivan_gammel 8y ago
        How many Twitters EU produced before GDPR? Approximately, 0. If we'll go below that number now, it will be an economic miracle I'd really like to see it. Now, seriously, there are so many other problems here and GDPR compliance is so easy when you've already paid attention to security of your service, that it really does not make sense to blame a good law. Losers who cannot comply just don't deserve to be on the market. The story with copyright directive is completely different and has no connection to GDPR.
    - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
      I think the fine structure of GDPR means that what might otherwise appear to be bottomless cash reserves are in fact only significant cash reserves, furthermore not only the advertisers have made this mistake but also the big players who seem to be operating at least on a quasi-antagonistic mode. So what I think is - when the antagonism ends up taking big chunks of money everyone will suddenly realize "oh shit, it's not bottomless" at which point there will opportunities to take advantage of. But maybe my take is too reasonable and instead the advertisers will think oh damn, stuff is really messed up better stay the course with these big guys to get us through these troubled times!
skywhopper 8y ago
I don't think it's bad intentions, just very very poor intuition about how computers and software works. They take it as a given that software-based content filters can and do work reasonably well and that the exceptions are exceedingly rare. Just like the press and government and most Hacker News patrons think that self-driving cars are imminent and real AI is just around the corner, and electronic voting is a good idea; and how the press believe that there's probably a backdoor solution for encryption that is still totally safe.
- cft 8y ago
  I think their calculation is far more rational: "There are no large internet companies in Europe (due to their own anti-startup regulation and taxation regime btw), but there are large copyright owners. So let's at least maximize the the value to the EU copyright lobby without any regard for the EU internet lobby (since we have none)".
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    >"anti-startup regulation and taxation regime" Plenty of startups from the EU have made it big. Just off the top of my head Spotify and Sitecore are pretty big.
    - pacnard 8y ago
      Europe has a bigger population than the US, it should have a lot more startups, but politicians, bureaucrats, existing rules, etc make the economy too unstable and incapable of welcoming new player. People here have learned to aspire for the 9-5 job and can't even imagine that problems are solved by entrepeneurs and not the government.
      - pavelludiq 8y ago
        The reason Europe doesn't have as many startups as the US is because nobody in their right mind would fund things like Juicero here, not because the bureaucracy. The "splash the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks" approach isn't the only way to build businesses. Frankly the myopia of SV culture is quite amusing to me. California just can't shake it's gold rush mentality it seems. I'm not saying it hasn't served a lot of people well( obviously it has, but to assume it's the best strategy is pretty short sighted, especially considering I've never seen any actual evidence that it produces a larger number of sustainable businesses. In fact most US startups seem to me to be more like schemes for getting aquihire, or straight up hail marries, rather that actual attempts to make money and build a sustainable business. Also, any entrepreneur that takes the attitude of "it's impossible to do with all of these rules and bureaucracy" is hardly deserving of the name, especially considering it's not really that bad[1], if they were serious, they would find a way to use the rules to their advantage rather than finding excuses or complaining over nothing. [1] For example in many parts of the EU, not only are taxes much lower than the rest, but costs of living and doing business are as well, and many of the rules are less enforced, maybe Europeans simply don't value collectible blockchain cat pictures or IoT fidget spinners as much as Americans do and are less willing to invest in them.
merinowool 8y ago
It is not about being inept but rather being willing to pass whatever someone pays you to pass. They simply don't care about the consequences because these will have nothing to do with them. If sh*t hits the fan, they'll retire on some island rich and happy.
DanBC 8y ago
Have you read the draft legislation? Where did you read it?

Just the mere fact that the EU government can be so technically inept as to draft and circulate such a legislation makes me totally distrust its intentions.

by cft 8y ago

Just the mere fact that the EU government can be so technically inept as to draft and circulate such a legislation makes me totally distrust its intentions.

zavi 8y ago

I'm getting GDPR flashbacks.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
GDPR benefited citizens and hurt big companies, article 13 benefits big companies and hurts everyone else
- sandov 8y ago
  Big companies are made by citizens. GDPR hurt everyone.
- sfifs 8y ago
  GDPR is helping US internet giants and squelching smaller players. I work in the media space and can see where advertiser money is flowing. Advertisers who had previously spread their money supporting smaller publishers including European publishers are now concentrating it in walled gardens to limit any potential liability reasoning that the walled gardens will better be able to handle any arising litigation through their bottomless cash reserves :-)
  - sincerely 8y ago
    If the “smaller players” aren’t willing to the take the reasonable steps to protect user data that would cause them to not be sued, then I’m fine with that.
    - sfifs 8y ago
      I believe you are missing the point of the comment. Even if smaller players take all super duper steps to protect user data, advertisers have no real way of knowing if they are in fact compliant whereas they have a simple way of looking at the published balance sheets of the big players and seeing the huge cash pile and armies of lawyers. The scare caused by activists weilding "nightmare letters" doesn't help. Also there's a body of thought in legal circles that even vendor chains needs to be evaluated which is causing advertisers to be wary. Far simpler to just throw money at the biggies who will deal with this. As usual, the smart money will be in the certification industry that will inevitably come up to tax the mid sized players while the small publishers will die out.
      - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        Either that or new small players will spring up that do not base their business on the user as a commodity.
        rmah 8y ago
        Problem is, those players will still incur the compliance costs. The GDPR rules are not simply penalties for bad behavior. They mandate proscriptive actions companies must take, policies they need to design, services they must perform on demand, etc. whether the company is engaging in bad behavior or not.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I think the basis of GP's comment is the bias a lot of GDPR supporters - myself included - have: we'd like to see the entire advertising industry die. So even if the effects hit smaller publishers more than the large ones, as long as it causes enough damage to the whole business model and incentivizes people to look for alternatives, it's a step in the right direction.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > even if the effects hit smaller publishers more than the large ones, as long as it causes enough damage to the whole business model and incentivizes people to look for alternatives, it's a step in the right direction Remember the adage “divide and conquer”? If you want to destroy something, consolidating its power base (like GDPR does to advertising in Europe) is a poor first move.
    - TJSomething 8y ago
      I think the issue here is that advertisers are not willing to evaluate if clients can protect user data unless large sums of money are offered up front. And if you don't profit from a website and just want to place advertisements to keep the lights on, you don't have that kind of money.
    - adventured 8y ago
      GDPR is an EU mandated protection for the US advertising giants. It guaranteed EU companies can never challenge them in the ad market. It guarantees the EU can never produce a Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, Google, Facebook, YouTube, or any other consumer advertising platform of consequence. Meanwhile, the US ad market will continue to produce an infinite bounty of vast, expanding profit, filling the coffers of the US giants. Those giants will then leverage that to enter / operate in the EU (even if it requires subsidy from the US profit machine), comply with GDPR, and perpetuate their dominance.
      - ivan_gammel 8y ago
        How many Twitters EU produced before GDPR? Approximately, 0. If we'll go below that number now, it will be an economic miracle I'd really like to see it. Now, seriously, there are so many other problems here and GDPR compliance is so easy when you've already paid attention to security of your service, that it really does not make sense to blame a good law. Losers who cannot comply just don't deserve to be on the market. The story with copyright directive is completely different and has no connection to GDPR.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    I think the fine structure of GDPR means that what might otherwise appear to be bottomless cash reserves are in fact only significant cash reserves, furthermore not only the advertisers have made this mistake but also the big players who seem to be operating at least on a quasi-antagonistic mode. So what I think is - when the antagonism ends up taking big chunks of money everyone will suddenly realize "oh shit, it's not bottomless" at which point there will opportunities to take advantage of. But maybe my take is too reasonable and instead the advertisers will think oh damn, stuff is really messed up better stay the course with these big guys to get us through these troubled times!

skywhopper 8y ago

I don't think it's bad intentions, just very very poor intuition about how computers and software works. They take it as a given that software-based content filters can and do work reasonably well and that the exceptions are exceedingly rare. Just like the press and government and most Hacker News patrons think that self-driving cars are imminent and real AI is just around the corner, and electronic voting is a good idea; and how the press believe that there's probably a backdoor solution for encryption that is still totally safe.

cft 8y ago
I think their calculation is far more rational: "There are no large internet companies in Europe (due to their own anti-startup regulation and taxation regime btw), but there are large copyright owners. So let's at least maximize the the value to the EU copyright lobby without any regard for the EU internet lobby (since we have none)".
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  >"anti-startup regulation and taxation regime" Plenty of startups from the EU have made it big. Just off the top of my head Spotify and Sitecore are pretty big.
  - pacnard 8y ago
    Europe has a bigger population than the US, it should have a lot more startups, but politicians, bureaucrats, existing rules, etc make the economy too unstable and incapable of welcoming new player. People here have learned to aspire for the 9-5 job and can't even imagine that problems are solved by entrepeneurs and not the government.
    - pavelludiq 8y ago
      The reason Europe doesn't have as many startups as the US is because nobody in their right mind would fund things like Juicero here, not because the bureaucracy. The "splash the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks" approach isn't the only way to build businesses. Frankly the myopia of SV culture is quite amusing to me. California just can't shake it's gold rush mentality it seems. I'm not saying it hasn't served a lot of people well( obviously it has, but to assume it's the best strategy is pretty short sighted, especially considering I've never seen any actual evidence that it produces a larger number of sustainable businesses. In fact most US startups seem to me to be more like schemes for getting aquihire, or straight up hail marries, rather that actual attempts to make money and build a sustainable business. Also, any entrepreneur that takes the attitude of "it's impossible to do with all of these rules and bureaucracy" is hardly deserving of the name, especially considering it's not really that bad[1], if they were serious, they would find a way to use the rules to their advantage rather than finding excuses or complaining over nothing. [1] For example in many parts of the EU, not only are taxes much lower than the rest, but costs of living and doing business are as well, and many of the rules are less enforced, maybe Europeans simply don't value collectible blockchain cat pictures or IoT fidget spinners as much as Americans do and are less willing to invest in them.

merinowool 8y ago

It is not about being inept but rather being willing to pass whatever someone pays you to pass. They simply don't care about the consequences because these will have nothing to do with them. If sh*t hits the fan, they'll retire on some island rich and happy.

DanBC 8y ago

Have you read the draft legislation? Where did you read it?