7 ms·

> That opening paragraph already speaks to the over-elevation of the market over any other concerns. So it perfectly fits onto "news.ycombinator.com" I have no

by Zak 7y ago

> That opening paragraph already speaks to the over-elevation of the market over any other concerns. So it perfectly fits onto "news.ycombinator.com" I have not found the cultural climate on HN to be opposed to the GDPR at all. Both its goals and its implementation seem to be popular here overall, and most comments I see that are critical of it get enough downvotes to have their text significantly desaturated even if they're making a good argument. It's my impression, though I have not worked in the field that people operating ad networks believe some kind of tracking is necessary to prevent click fraud, and do not want to sell ads free of any tracking even when they have customers asking for the option. I don't know how true this claim is or whether alternatives have been adequately explored. What I do know is that some of the industries that use ads, such as newspapers are struggling to make enough money to continue operating. Nobody will miss a scummy adtech firm, but people might miss local news outlets. It's valid to talk about the impact on business not just in terms of profits, but also considering potential positive externalities of the continued operation of a given business.

jdietrich 7y ago
Purely anecdotal, but I've had many debates over the last year on HN with people who claim that GDPR is just protectionism - rather than being a sincere effort to improve human rights online, they argue that it's just a sour-grapes effort to cripple American tech companies.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  Undoubtedly it passed due to support from many people with each motive.
- lukevdp 7y ago
  Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article. “The consequence was that just hours after the law’s enforcement, numerous independent ad exchanges and other vendors watched their ad demand volumes drop between 20 and 40 percent. But with agencies free to still buy demand on Google’s marketplace, demand on AdX spiked. The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors.” (Digiday)
  - UncleEntity 7y ago
    > Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article. That would be the "unintended" part. Only the ginormous companies can spend thousands of human hours on compliance while their smaller competitors either leave the market or get steamrolled due to the compliance costs. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again...
  - Isinlor 7y ago
    Having the intention to harm US companies and while implementing it actually benefiting them is not mutually exclusive. Political motivations will be complex for anything with as wide impact and as complex as GDPR. The perception that the US tech companies should be affected the most was certainly factored in during the political process involving thousands of people. It's debatable how small or great impact this had, not whether there was any.
anoncake 7y ago
> I have not found the cultural climate on HN to be opposed to the GDPR at all. That strongly depends on the time of day, read: Whether Europe or America is awake.
- asveikau 7y ago
  This is an astute observation about this site. I too have noticed, on many topics, that the comments here tend to acquire a different character when it's the middle of the night in California.
frostburg 7y ago
I recall a discussion on the matter. Everyone that wasn't selling ads felt that if it was impossible to sell ads without tracking due to "click fraud", there was no obligation from society to prop up their failing business model by letting them ignore the privacy rights of the public just because it was expedient to do so.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Which is a fine argument, but people often don't consider that this kills off all the businesses that rely on those adtech companies. I think part of the problem is that it's not immediately obvious that sites like Google and YouTube only run because of that adtech.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    They only rely on ads because that's the path of least resistance. If the GDPR eventually means that there is no Google or no Youtube anymore – which is not very likely – that just means the cost of Google/Youtube doesn't justify its benefits, assuming markets work at all.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Those services would still exist in other countries. They just wouldn't exist in the EU.
- friedman23 7y ago
  > their failing business model The business model is fine, the EU and you are choosing to kill it. Not only are people arguing for no tracking they are arguing on forcing other people to live without tracking. So if someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for their personal information they don't even have the choice. Additionally GDPR requires that businesses not restrict their products to only those that are funding it.
  - franciscop 7y ago
manigandham 7y ago
Many in adtech do support privacy and data protection, after all they're just people too and want a good experience online. The problem is that GDPR is well intentioned but poorly implemented, a common occurrence in politics with examples in lots of sectors. These kinds of unintended consequences are what happens when politicians don't quite understand the nuances of an industry and focus more on regulation-in-principle and showboating rather than actually effective rules.
- icebraining 7y ago
  No, unintended consequences happen in every change one implements. Show me a law of any consequence, and I'll show you some unintended consequences it brought on. I think you are confusing unintended with unforeseen, which is a different matter. But I don't think these were unforeseen; some are problems with the implementation, which will be corrected by the companies responsible, and others are just inevitable (if you give people access to something, by definition it makes it easier for a third-party to abuse that access).
  - manigandham 7y ago
    These problems were not unforeseen. The politicians were warned over and over again and you can find articles about it going back years. The implementation problems are with the law, not the companies. There are ways to enforce data protection and privacy without such complex and nebulous laws that aren't even effective against the worst offenders.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > There are ways I've seen many critics of the GDPR say something to this effect; I've yet to see any make it concrete. Without wishing to put you on the spot, what leads you to that conclusion?

by Zak 7y ago

jdietrich 7y ago

Purely anecdotal, but I've had many debates over the last year on HN with people who claim that GDPR is just protectionism - rather than being a sincere effort to improve human rights online, they argue that it's just a sour-grapes effort to cripple American tech companies.

jeremyjh 7y ago
Undoubtedly it passed due to support from many people with each motive.
lukevdp 7y ago
Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article. “The consequence was that just hours after the law’s enforcement, numerous independent ad exchanges and other vendors watched their ad demand volumes drop between 20 and 40 percent. But with agencies free to still buy demand on Google’s marketplace, demand on AdX spiked. The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors.” (Digiday)
- UncleEntity 7y ago
  > Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article. That would be the "unintended" part. Only the ginormous companies can spend thousands of human hours on compliance while their smaller competitors either leave the market or get steamrolled due to the compliance costs. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again...
- Isinlor 7y ago
  Having the intention to harm US companies and while implementing it actually benefiting them is not mutually exclusive. Political motivations will be complex for anything with as wide impact and as complex as GDPR. The perception that the US tech companies should be affected the most was certainly factored in during the political process involving thousands of people. It's debatable how small or great impact this had, not whether there was any.

anoncake 7y ago

> I have not found the cultural climate on HN to be opposed to the GDPR at all. That strongly depends on the time of day, read: Whether Europe or America is awake.

asveikau 7y ago
This is an astute observation about this site. I too have noticed, on many topics, that the comments here tend to acquire a different character when it's the middle of the night in California.

frostburg 7y ago

I recall a discussion on the matter. Everyone that wasn't selling ads felt that if it was impossible to sell ads without tracking due to "click fraud", there was no obligation from society to prop up their failing business model by letting them ignore the privacy rights of the public just because it was expedient to do so.

Mirioron 7y ago
Which is a fine argument, but people often don't consider that this kills off all the businesses that rely on those adtech companies. I think part of the problem is that it's not immediately obvious that sites like Google and YouTube only run because of that adtech.
- anoncake 7y ago
  They only rely on ads because that's the path of least resistance. If the GDPR eventually means that there is no Google or no Youtube anymore – which is not very likely – that just means the cost of Google/Youtube doesn't justify its benefits, assuming markets work at all.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Those services would still exist in other countries. They just wouldn't exist in the EU.
friedman23 7y ago
> their failing business model The business model is fine, the EU and you are choosing to kill it. Not only are people arguing for no tracking they are arguing on forcing other people to live without tracking. So if someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for their personal information they don't even have the choice. Additionally GDPR requires that businesses not restrict their products to only those that are funding it.
- franciscop 7y ago

manigandham 7y ago

Many in adtech do support privacy and data protection, after all they're just people too and want a good experience online. The problem is that GDPR is well intentioned but poorly implemented, a common occurrence in politics with examples in lots of sectors. These kinds of unintended consequences are what happens when politicians don't quite understand the nuances of an industry and focus more on regulation-in-principle and showboating rather than actually effective rules.

icebraining 7y ago
No, unintended consequences happen in every change one implements. Show me a law of any consequence, and I'll show you some unintended consequences it brought on. I think you are confusing unintended with unforeseen, which is a different matter. But I don't think these were unforeseen; some are problems with the implementation, which will be corrected by the companies responsible, and others are just inevitable (if you give people access to something, by definition it makes it easier for a third-party to abuse that access).
- manigandham 7y ago
  These problems were not unforeseen. The politicians were warned over and over again and you can find articles about it going back years. The implementation problems are with the law, not the companies. There are ways to enforce data protection and privacy without such complex and nebulous laws that aren't even effective against the worst offenders.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > There are ways I've seen many critics of the GDPR say something to this effect; I've yet to see any make it concrete. Without wishing to put you on the spot, what leads you to that conclusion?