3 ms·

> It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic. Enforcement however is

> It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic. Enforcement however is at the discretion of European courts, and as noted previously, affects companies disproportionately foreign. If the EU can (slowly) force a foster a segmentation in the internet, similar to China with Baidu et. all, there are obvious economic benefits The parent's wording aside, I wouldn't consider it prudent to assume any regulation is benevolently intended. Better to judge on game-theoretical merits. Which makes me suspicious of the GDPR in no small part because of its vagueness and the potential for selective enforcement.

p1necone 8y ago
So there's parts of your argument too that are buried in unstated assumptions? By (pretending?) to think that all the stuff that others actually disagree with in your argument is accepted and doesn't need to be said, and just stating the things that logically follow on from those unstated axioms you're adding very little of value to the conversation. I see this a lot from people on extreme ends of the political spectrum, I can only assume it's to make your ideas look trivially correct to people who aren't reading what you're saying very carefully. Or perhaps because some are deluded about how common their opinions are?
- thereisnospork 8y ago
  What assumptions other than 'thou shalt not assume the government is acting altruistically'* have I made? This is hardly an unfair or unreasonable assumption, see: History, all of. I don't believe I was at any point unclear on this assumption, in fact I made a point to clarify it. If you have a specific disagreement you can back up, lets hear it. If anything my argument is so simple because it is basically a truism: - regulations benefit someone (duh) - regulations don't necessarily benefit the someone the other someone writing them says (duh) - lacking game theoretical* evidence of regulation benefiting aforementioned somebody (here due to vagueness) one cannot fairly assume that said regulation does in fact, benefit the someones (and only the someones) it is purported to. Quite frankly I don't see how any of these points are particularly arguable, but I always enjoy being proven wrong (so that I won't be next time). #Even if you want to assume altruism, surely one cannot fairly assume competence. ## I'd even say to the point of being useless except these sorts of conversations always seem to degrade into 'regulations are good'/'regulations are bad' pissing matches instead of actually looking at A. what the regulation does and B. is that a good thing? I was trying to discuss A in view of our imperfect information but that hasn't exactly happened, pity. ### I use 'game theoretical' somewhat loosely here, aiming for succinctness.

p1necone 8y ago

So there's parts of your argument too that are buried in unstated assumptions? By (pretending?) to think that all the stuff that others actually disagree with in your argument is accepted and doesn't need to be said, and just stating the things that logically follow on from those unstated axioms you're adding very little of value to the conversation. I see this a lot from people on extreme ends of the political spectrum, I can only assume it's to make your ideas look trivially correct to people who aren't reading what you're saying very carefully. Or perhaps because some are deluded about how common their opinions are?

thereisnospork 8y ago
What assumptions other than 'thou shalt not assume the government is acting altruistically'* have I made? This is hardly an unfair or unreasonable assumption, see: History, all of. I don't believe I was at any point unclear on this assumption, in fact I made a point to clarify it. If you have a specific disagreement you can back up, lets hear it. If anything my argument is so simple because it is basically a truism: - regulations benefit someone (duh) - regulations don't necessarily benefit the someone the other someone writing them says (duh) - lacking game theoretical* evidence of regulation benefiting aforementioned somebody (here due to vagueness) one cannot fairly assume that said regulation does in fact, benefit the someones (and only the someones) it is purported to. Quite frankly I don't see how any of these points are particularly arguable, but I always enjoy being proven wrong (so that I won't be next time). #Even if you want to assume altruism, surely one cannot fairly assume competence. ## I'd even say to the point of being useless except these sorts of conversations always seem to degrade into 'regulations are good'/'regulations are bad' pissing matches instead of actually looking at A. what the regulation does and B. is that a good thing? I was trying to discuss A in view of our imperfect information but that hasn't exactly happened, pity. ### I use 'game theoretical' somewhat loosely here, aiming for succinctness.