3 ms·

You dismissed my comment as “nonsense” but then didn’t refute anything I said. You implied it doesn’t matter if Google has less competition, and conveyed an un

You dismissed my comment as “nonsense” but then didn’t refute anything I said. You implied it doesn’t matter if Google has less competition, and conveyed an unexamined assumption that the GDPR is the most reasonable and optimal way of assuring user privacy.

Apocryphon 8y ago
Is the cost of compliance truly prohibitive to new entrants? Because if it isn’t, then the claim truly is nonsense.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  You've just re-asked the very question my parent commenter should have addressed if they were going to dismiss my first comment, avoided addressing it yourself, then repeated the "nonsense" dismissal with the addition of an emphatic word. People who are committed to logical argumentation – and I've seen this point made often on HN – will say that the reduction in the quantity and formidability of new startups is an acceptable price to pay for improved user privacy. It still leaves open the question of whether the GDPR is a reasonable and optimal way of achieving improved user privacy, but at least it's a logical argument. The question of whether GDPR really is reducing startup formation and success is unclear at this stage, and it's possible it will never really be known. This Bloomberg article [1] from November cites research suggesting that it is, but argues that it's probably not a bad thing. As I said, that's a fair enough position, but we all need to be clear clear about what our position is. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-14/facebook-and-google-aren-t-hurt-by-gdpr-but-smaller-firms-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-14/facebo...
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    The study is examining the amount of venture funding received in countries affected by GDPR, which seems unrelated to your statement “startups that never get off the ground because the cost of compliance is prohibitive”. Investors backing off because of perceived costs of compliance do not necessarily mean compliance is all that much expensive. Furthermore, it would appear that the study is incomplete. > Wagman and Zhe Jin didn’t break down their data by business model, but if companies in the data extraction business receive less funding, Europe as whole and European consumers in particular probably won’t be any worse off. > There’s also the question of data quality; Jia, Wagman and Zhe Jin cautioned in their paper that their dataset was not complete. And indeed, according to Pitchbook, a multinational firm that tracks public and private equity investment, while venture activity in Europe dropped somewhat in the third quarter and is likely to be relatively flat for the year as a whole, the share of capital received by software companies is higher than ever before, which would suggest tech innovation isn’t exactly being stifled. It would seem that we are an impasse until further empirical data is collected. Perhaps an American experiment is in order?
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      Here's a thought experiment for you: if it were shown that the costs and risks associated with GDPR - in its current form - were high enough to meaningfully reduce the number of startups starting and achieving success, would you still support it, as it currently exists?
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        As it currently exists, of course not. But as with any regulation or policy, it can be modified as befitting local conditions and times. Certainly it need not be a carbon copy of the European legislation. The devil’s in the details, after all.

Apocryphon 8y ago

Is the cost of compliance truly prohibitive to new entrants? Because if it isn’t, then the claim truly is nonsense.

tomhoward 8y ago
You've just re-asked the very question my parent commenter should have addressed if they were going to dismiss my first comment, avoided addressing it yourself, then repeated the "nonsense" dismissal with the addition of an emphatic word. People who are committed to logical argumentation – and I've seen this point made often on HN – will say that the reduction in the quantity and formidability of new startups is an acceptable price to pay for improved user privacy. It still leaves open the question of whether the GDPR is a reasonable and optimal way of achieving improved user privacy, but at least it's a logical argument. The question of whether GDPR really is reducing startup formation and success is unclear at this stage, and it's possible it will never really be known. This Bloomberg article [1] from November cites research suggesting that it is, but argues that it's probably not a bad thing. As I said, that's a fair enough position, but we all need to be clear clear about what our position is. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-14/facebook-and-google-aren-t-hurt-by-gdpr-but-smaller-firms-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-14/facebo...
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  The study is examining the amount of venture funding received in countries affected by GDPR, which seems unrelated to your statement “startups that never get off the ground because the cost of compliance is prohibitive”. Investors backing off because of perceived costs of compliance do not necessarily mean compliance is all that much expensive. Furthermore, it would appear that the study is incomplete. > Wagman and Zhe Jin didn’t break down their data by business model, but if companies in the data extraction business receive less funding, Europe as whole and European consumers in particular probably won’t be any worse off. > There’s also the question of data quality; Jia, Wagman and Zhe Jin cautioned in their paper that their dataset was not complete. And indeed, according to Pitchbook, a multinational firm that tracks public and private equity investment, while venture activity in Europe dropped somewhat in the third quarter and is likely to be relatively flat for the year as a whole, the share of capital received by software companies is higher than ever before, which would suggest tech innovation isn’t exactly being stifled. It would seem that we are an impasse until further empirical data is collected. Perhaps an American experiment is in order?
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    Here's a thought experiment for you: if it were shown that the costs and risks associated with GDPR - in its current form - were high enough to meaningfully reduce the number of startups starting and achieving success, would you still support it, as it currently exists?
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      As it currently exists, of course not. But as with any regulation or policy, it can be modified as befitting local conditions and times. Certainly it need not be a carbon copy of the European legislation. The devil’s in the details, after all.