7 ms·

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 wa

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
  Well yeah, that's the meaning of laws/regulation, they apply to everyone. If someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for [something illegal] well sorry but not allowed. That's not the hard part of this whole debate...
  - logicprog 7y ago
    Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? That user's have the right to their own data? If they decide they want a free service in exchange for it, they're only 'hurting' themselves after all, and if they really have a right to their data (instead of a right to have their rulers tell them what to do with their data) then they should be able to make that choice! You can't act like everything that's "illegal" is equally bad, by grouping "personal data" with other "[something illegal]" items. That's a pretty severe case of equivocation.
    - mtsr 7y ago
      Is it really the case that they are only hurting themselves? The effect of targeted advertising on platforms such as Facebook seems to have had a very negative effect on democracy, for example.
      - logicprog 7y ago
        I'm not sure I see that, but I'd be willing to consider that possibility if there was any data to back that up instead of hysterical op-eds and articles. I see a lot of those, but not a lot in the way of convincing evidence. Although, FB in general doesn't seem to help the political discourse, I don't think it's anyone's job to decide what ways of communication and discussion are right for a democracy, because if you control where people can speak and what they can say, it's a short step until you control how they vote.
    - josefx 7y ago
      > Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.

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
Well yeah, that's the meaning of laws/regulation, they apply to everyone. If someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for [something illegal] well sorry but not allowed. That's not the hard part of this whole debate...
- logicprog 7y ago
  Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? That user's have the right to their own data? If they decide they want a free service in exchange for it, they're only 'hurting' themselves after all, and if they really have a right to their data (instead of a right to have their rulers tell them what to do with their data) then they should be able to make that choice! You can't act like everything that's "illegal" is equally bad, by grouping "personal data" with other "[something illegal]" items. That's a pretty severe case of equivocation.
  - mtsr 7y ago
    Is it really the case that they are only hurting themselves? The effect of targeted advertising on platforms such as Facebook seems to have had a very negative effect on democracy, for example.
    - logicprog 7y ago
      I'm not sure I see that, but I'd be willing to consider that possibility if there was any data to back that up instead of hysterical op-eds and articles. I see a lot of those, but not a lot in the way of convincing evidence. Although, FB in general doesn't seem to help the political discourse, I don't think it's anyone's job to decide what ways of communication and discussion are right for a democracy, because if you control where people can speak and what they can say, it's a short step until you control how they vote.
  - josefx 7y ago
    > Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.