5 ms·

Come on now. You cannot compare this to GPDR. GPDR was about protecting individuals, this is about protecting corporate interests. That's why this seems batshit

Come on now. You cannot compare this to GPDR. GPDR was about protecting individuals, this is about protecting corporate interests. That's why this seems batshit crazy and GPDR is reasonable. The rest of your points are worthless anecdotes. Yes it may have happened once, and yes it was stupid, but it's not like you will be chased down by the police if you walk around with a potato peeler. You cannot seriously believe that.

timrichard 8y ago
> GPDR was about protecting individuals, this is about protecting corporate interests Or how about both rooted in a power-grab by an aspiring superstate that has long been resentful of the influence the US and it's corporates has over it's Internet-dependent citizens? Or perhaps I'm being too cynical. The remote, barely accountable, hard-lobbied politicians are only looking out for individuals. These new content filter and link tax proposals as just anomalies.
kodablah 8y ago
Please stop judging a law on what it's about but instead on its real life consequences. Intent matters little if people/companies are unnecessarily hurt.
- Tomte 8y ago
  People aren't hurt by less data-selling. I love the GDPR. It came out of nowhere (I hadn't heard much about it before the big hubbub), I couldn't believe they were doing something so bold, and it reinvigorated my belief in the European Union.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > People aren't hurt by less data-selling You're doing the intent thing where you are saying what you think is the case or the intent instead of the reality. People are hurt by the money they spend applying reasonable compliance risk avoidance measures when new laws come out. People running companies, employees of those companies, customers of those companies, and society as a whole. Maybe you feel the harm is worth it, but please stop pretending it doesn't exist. And it didn't come out of nowhere, data protection laws had existed before, didn't work before, so they doubled down on the already-failed legislative approach with the same not-working institutions instead of taking more practical or incremental approaches.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      I'm a strong believer in the primacy of politics over companies. So if society decides to solve a problem, "it costs some money" is simply no argument against it. Companies are free to operate in some failed state if they wish not to contribute to society.

timrichard 8y ago

> GPDR was about protecting individuals, this is about protecting corporate interests Or how about both rooted in a power-grab by an aspiring superstate that has long been resentful of the influence the US and it's corporates has over it's Internet-dependent citizens? Or perhaps I'm being too cynical. The remote, barely accountable, hard-lobbied politicians are only looking out for individuals. These new content filter and link tax proposals as just anomalies.

kodablah 8y ago

Please stop judging a law on what it's about but instead on its real life consequences. Intent matters little if people/companies are unnecessarily hurt.

Tomte 8y ago
People aren't hurt by less data-selling. I love the GDPR. It came out of nowhere (I hadn't heard much about it before the big hubbub), I couldn't believe they were doing something so bold, and it reinvigorated my belief in the European Union.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > People aren't hurt by less data-selling You're doing the intent thing where you are saying what you think is the case or the intent instead of the reality. People are hurt by the money they spend applying reasonable compliance risk avoidance measures when new laws come out. People running companies, employees of those companies, customers of those companies, and society as a whole. Maybe you feel the harm is worth it, but please stop pretending it doesn't exist. And it didn't come out of nowhere, data protection laws had existed before, didn't work before, so they doubled down on the already-failed legislative approach with the same not-working institutions instead of taking more practical or incremental approaches.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    I'm a strong believer in the primacy of politics over companies. So if society decides to solve a problem, "it costs some money" is simply no argument against it. Companies are free to operate in some failed state if they wish not to contribute to society.