3 ms·

> Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time,

> Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. > How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You can't turn Google's spying off. They show a modal that you can only dismiss by "agreeing" that they use your data for their purposes. > You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors. Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?
- anoncake 7y ago
  > If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. > Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. > It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there? Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? It's not my problem that Google doesn't charge for their services. No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. Which of these do you think is more likely: That Google knows the specific things that will cause it to be fined and just doesn't care about tens of billions of dollars, or that they're trying to but can't figure out ahead of time what behavior will result in fines? > You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. Then what do those settings do? > Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? Somebody is paying for it. If you get them to stop doing that, what do you expect to follow? > No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore. At which point you have the possibility of most people "voluntarily" sharing their data and the service continuing to be free, or the alternative that they don't and everybody has to pay for it directly. But the first one is basically the status quo and if you're angling for the second one then, again, why don't you just start there?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Which of these do you think is more likely: That Google knows the specific things that will cause it to be fined and just doesn't care about tens of billions of dollars, or that they're trying to but can't figure out ahead of time what behavior will result in fines? I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts that are phrased as false dilemmas. > Then what do those settings do? I don't know -- Google doesn't let me access them without logging in. Nor do I care. It definitely doesn't let you turn off the data collection that Google forces you to "consent" too. The whole point of forcing someone is not giving them a choice. > Somebody is paying for it. If you get them to stop doing that, what do you expect to follow? The services currently funded with corporate propaganda are instead funded in a saner way. Ideally the public funds it, but even charging people individually makes more sense than ads. However, other goods and services become slightly cheaper because their producers and providers don't spend as much on advertising. This more than compensates having to pay for services since you only have to pay for the service itself, not the service and the ad companies that charge you for the service in a stealthy and horribly convoluted way. > At which point you have the possibility of most people "voluntarily" sharing their data and the service continuing to be free, or the alternative that they don't and everybody has to pay for it directly. But the first one is basically the status quo and if you're angling for the second one then, again, why don't you just start there? Because I'm a dirty commie who is not in the habit of donating money to multinational for-profit corporations. Is that a serious question?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?

anoncake 7y ago
> If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. > Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. > It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there? Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? It's not my problem that Google doesn't charge for their services. No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. Which of these do you think is more likely: That Google knows the specific things that will cause it to be fined and just doesn't care about tens of billions of dollars, or that they're trying to but can't figure out ahead of time what behavior will result in fines? > You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. Then what do those settings do? > Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? Somebody is paying for it. If you get them to stop doing that, what do you expect to follow? > No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore. At which point you have the possibility of most people "voluntarily" sharing their data and the service continuing to be free, or the alternative that they don't and everybody has to pay for it directly. But the first one is basically the status quo and if you're angling for the second one then, again, why don't you just start there?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Which of these do you think is more likely: That Google knows the specific things that will cause it to be fined and just doesn't care about tens of billions of dollars, or that they're trying to but can't figure out ahead of time what behavior will result in fines? I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts that are phrased as false dilemmas. > Then what do those settings do? I don't know -- Google doesn't let me access them without logging in. Nor do I care. It definitely doesn't let you turn off the data collection that Google forces you to "consent" too. The whole point of forcing someone is not giving them a choice. > Somebody is paying for it. If you get them to stop doing that, what do you expect to follow? The services currently funded with corporate propaganda are instead funded in a saner way. Ideally the public funds it, but even charging people individually makes more sense than ads. However, other goods and services become slightly cheaper because their producers and providers don't spend as much on advertising. This more than compensates having to pay for services since you only have to pay for the service itself, not the service and the ad companies that charge you for the service in a stealthy and horribly convoluted way. > At which point you have the possibility of most people "voluntarily" sharing their data and the service continuing to be free, or the alternative that they don't and everybody has to pay for it directly. But the first one is basically the status quo and if you're angling for the second one then, again, why don't you just start there? Because I'm a dirty commie who is not in the habit of donating money to multinational for-profit corporations. Is that a serious question?