3 ms·
It seems like there’s things from both sides of the camp on first glance, can you point out the bias you see? (Legitimate question, and I only quickly glanced.)
by Operyl 7y ago
It seems like there’s things from both sides of the camp on first glance, can you point out the bias you see? (Legitimate question, and I only quickly glanced.)
- lobotryas 7y agoNow-a-days”biased” means “I brought evidence to support my opinion”. There is nothing biased in TFA; just a person who thinks GDPR is a bad idea.
- skybrian 7y agoIf you start out with an opinion and look for evidence to support it, yeah, that is biased. But it doesn't mean it's not a useful contribution to the conversation. Certainly it's better than not looking for evidence!
- looeee 7y agoIf you look for evidence to prove yourself right, then you will find it. Even if you're wrong.
- CyanBird 7y agoAt least from what I read, it is the slant of the entire piece than anything in particular. If we removed environmental protections we would also see a boom of growth in the industry, but we decided that those benefits don't outweigh the environmental cost, same here with GDPR, after Cambridge analytica using digital micro targeting to heavily manipulate populations and elections it is simply too high a cost to pay for what is otherwise a pretty shifty industry otherwise I'd heavily recommend everyone here to read the book surveillance capitalism it is an incredible explanation of what goes behind the curtain In short, GDPR has some relatively minor problems and externalities and blogger wants to scrap the entire GDPR because of them....
- skybrian 7y agoI'm judging by "Compliance costs are astronomical" when the supporting evidence is largely estimates from before it went into effect. So you can't take everything too seriously, but still, it's good to collect more links. Also, the author is being clear about the weakness of some of the supporting evidence.