6 ms·
I was so excited over how the EU managed to get GDPR so right, that I couldn't believe that the EU would get something else about the internet so wrong immediat
by QasimK 8y ago
I was so excited over how the EU managed to get GDPR so right, that I couldn't believe that the EU would get something else about the internet so wrong immediately afterwards.
- kodablah 8y agoI had the opposite opinion of the GDPR and have the same opinion about this legislation (namely heavy-handed internet governance, which is not unique to EU, is problematic regardless of original intention).
- Mahn 8y agoAny sort of legislation is problematic if the people responsible for legislating do not understand that which is being legislated.
- groestl 8y agoThe GDPR was basically a legislative accident, in that the a member of the Greens and strong proponent of privacy and data protection was made rapporteur to the European Parlament for the proposal [0]. There is an interesting documentary on that ("Democracy", 2015, by David Bernet). This new Copyright Directive seems to be an accident in the opposite direction, with Axel Voss as rapporteur. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Philipp_Albrecht https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Philipp_Albrecht
- mschuster91 8y ago> This new Copyright Directive seems to be an accident in the opposite direction, with Axel Voss as rapporteur. It's not an accident. Look who will profit from the link tax the most... the Axel Springer Verlag, owner of many large publications in Germany, especially the tabloid BILD. The boss of ASV is Friede Springer... who happens to be good friends with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Axel Voss is in the same party (CDU). Now add in that for a very long time the BILD was considered to be the "inofficial voice" of the CDU/CSU (the refugee influx changed that a bit, as BILD heavily went down the racist route and attacking Merkel's refugee politics but still, the paper is leaning heavily conservative). Sascha Lobo, German journalist for SPIEGEL, has outlined the entire stuff here (in German, though): http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/leistungsschutzrecht-fuer-presseverleger-so-ein-quatschgesetz-a-1212697.html http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/leistungsschutzre...
- briandear 8y agoOff topic, but how is attacking refugee policy “racist?” Are debates of such policy not allowed? Germany had the exact same debates over Serbian and Bosnian refugees during those wars. Syrian refugees were treated better legally than Bosnians and Serbs — Bosnians and Serbs were granted “temporary protection” status and not permitted to stay permanently and they were informed of that policy upon arrival, unlike Syrian refugees which have the opportunity for permenant resettlement. If it’s “racist” to debate that, then racism as a word has lost all meaning. If anything Syrian refugees have been granted greater privileges than Bosnian-Serbs. It would seem that policy could, be considered racist. Folks have bent over backwards to be as “unracist” as possible and thus, bad policy has happened because any debate on the topic is automatically shut down as racism. You can’t have a legitimate policy debate without being called a racist anymore.
- mschuster91 8y ago> Off topic, but how is attacking refugee policy “racist?” The narrative pushed by BILD was that for anything from antisemitism over rising housing costs to "rises" in criminality was caused by refugees (and refugees alone, never mind still dominant Nazi antisemitism, capitalism and fabricated statistics), that refugees are dangerous, that Islam is dangerous and other stuff that basically echoed what the local right-wing extremist party AfD also said. It's perfectly valid to debate refugee (or other) politics, but if one crosses that thin line of feeding the population outright lies or incite hatred, one deserves to be called a racist hate monger.
- antidesitter 8y agoIs calling out the dangers of radical Islam “racist hate mongering”, in your view?
- mschuster91 8y ago> Is calling out the dangers of radical Islam “racist hate mongering”, in your view? There is nothing wrong in calling out the bullshit represented in certain Islamic groups (e.g. Salafism or Wahhabism). What BILD (and a boatload of other racist outlets) do, however, is throwing all the millions of Turks, the refugees and other Muslims in Germany, in the same boat as ISIS, Saudi-Arabia and al-Quaeda. This is the hate mongering that's really dangerous for societies.
- blfr 8y agoGDPR has been an UX disaster in practice. Now they're also going after content.
- pedrocr 8y agoIt's only a UX disaster because it makes it obvious what horrible things you now have to accept just to read some mildly interesting thing on some crappy site. That may be bad UX for the site but it's actually good UX for the user. Makes you consume less crap.
- andybak 8y agoNo. It makes me click a lot more checkboxes to do the same stuff I was prepared to do beforehand.
- jeremyt 8y agoNo it doesn't. It teaches you after about 20 times, that all sites are equally bad and now I can just safely ignore these popup notices. It promotes apathy.
- mcv 8y agoThe UX disaster is that apparently some sites use third-party cookies to store my preferences regarding to what cookies I will allow and which I refuse. Because my browser rejects all third-party cookies (obviously), they keep losing these preferences and I have to keep telling them that I don't want these cookies.
- fludlight 8y agoSearch, social, aggregators, and adtech's growing bite out of the whole advertising and media sales pie has been hurting the profits of older, lower-tech content companies. About a decade ago, it became apparent that Silicon Valley was "front-running" Hollywood and eating their lunch. This is an attempt to reverse that trend. The newspaper, sporting event, TV, and movie library companies went to their buddies at the EU and got GDPR passed which banned modern adtech under the guise of privacy and data nationalism. Now they've changed copyright law to place restrictions on social, search, and aggregators. Might as well call it the FIFA Fucks FAANG Act of 2018.
- etatoby 8y agoThis is a very interesting point of view. They could be two products of the same lobbying interests, and they just manged to pass the most user-palatable one first.
- jimnotgym 8y agoBut this has only passed the EU parliament, that is a long way from becoming a regulation.
- Havoc 8y ago>I was so excited over how the EU managed to get GDPR so right Agreed, though I could really have done without every damn site having an extra popup that gives me a choice that isn't a choice...click accept.
- jacquesm 8y agoThat's actually a point of proof in favor of the GDPR, it shows clearly that companies are still trying to work their way around reasonable controls placed on the privacy of their end users. The fact that they resort to implicit blackmail to force your consent (which isn't consent if it is forced...) is interesting.
- etatoby 8y ago"Accept our terms or do your business elsewhere" is how markets have always operated. It's not "blackmailing" and it's not "forcing your consent." The EU looks like it's turning more and more into a non-free regime. And your comment, among many others, signals that it's exactly what many Europeans want. Which is sad.
- jacquesm 8y agoI don't see how you managed to go from the curbing of the free-for-all with respect to private individuals data and the management thereof to a 'non-free regime', it's rather the opposite. As a result of the GDPR I have the ability to stand up to companies that abuse my data, which effectively makes me more free (at their expense). So yes, those companies are engaging in forcing of consent, and forced or coerced consent is no consent.
- antidesitter 8y agoHow are they engaging in “forcing of consent”?
- etatoby 8y agoThey are not forcing anything. In a free market you are free not to buy their product, and they should be free to offer it with the terms they like. But freedom is a scarce resource these days.