4 ms·

This worst-case web would still support all of the original use-cases of the web, where ordinary folks and organizations were posting ordinary documents that an

by nfoz 7y ago

This worst-case web would still support all of the original use-cases of the web, where ordinary folks and organizations were posting ordinary documents that anyone anywhere in the world could view. It's small-business webapps that have problems. But I would be very glad for those to stop doing so many terribly sketchy things that have become the norm on this consumer-unfriendly internet we're dealing with. So like I'm super afraid of a "regulated internet", but I'm also super sad by what's happened while it's been unregulated. Businesses, governments, even ICANN have done terrible things to the internet. I'm not very optimistic for any outcome anymore.

comboy 7y ago
Not really. If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Understanding it may require more time that you were willing to spend on share your ideas with the world. So if you really want to share you move to some big platform that handles it all for you. The law is already so complex that even within a single country or a state, people who study it need specialisations. Regulators have no grasp regarding existing laws or full extent of laws they are voting for. It's madness. Small business that government or a big company doesn't like can already be killed by thousand cuts because they don't have infinite amount of money to spend on lawyers.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  You already have server logs for analytics. What you refer to as “analytics” is actually stalking and I’m glad we have regulation around it now. By the way, you don’t need to display a warning, you need to ask for consent in a non-intrusive way (consent should be freely given). Or just you know, don’t stalk people. Seems like an easy enough solution.
- qwsxyh 7y ago
  > If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Not having both of those is a good thing, so I see no downside.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Not having comments on anything personal is a good thing with zero downside?
    - qwsxyh 7y ago
      Hacker News and Reddit comments have made me sure that comments are never a good thing.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- simpss 7y ago
  no, GDPR does not have any effect on personal websites. Article 2 of GDPR defines the scope of the law. > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
  - comboy 7y ago
    If I had a website about programming and it had a forum part is it purely personal? What if is it just comment section? What if I had ads to cover server costs vs when I don't have them now? I closed the website because I don't know. And I don't think I would say I know until I hire a lawyer. Re analytics part from another comment, I only care how they interact with my website. Without sharing that info with anybody. You could avoid cookies if you really wanted to but then you actually collect more data about your visitors.
    - arbitrage 7y ago
      What if aliens came down and probed your butt? You're throwing about ridiculously obscure edge cases that don't really matter to the point at hand.
      - comboy 7y ago
        It may not matter to you, for me it represents more than 10 years during which I've put thousands of hours into it. Apart from that, an internet forum doesn't seem like a ridiculously obscure edge case.
      - kbenson 7y ago
        A law that applies to large swatch of regular, benign behavior of people and makes it illegal is not a good law. If that benign behavior is not targeted and the law is used to good effect, it may be beneficial in the short term, and be useful, but it is not good, because it gives the state extra leverage against normal people that they can apply it unevenly. A decade from now, the state might target certain sites with forums that say things they don't approve of, and use these laws to do so. Is giving the state more tools to circumvent freedoms like freedom of speech due to technicalities a good thing? How about in stead of making a law that blankets many benign interactions and relying on enforcement of only actual problems be up to the opinion of the enforcers, we try to target the actual problem behavior as tightly as possible, and then identify the edges where problem behavior exists and pass new legislation to apply to that?

by nfoz 7y ago

comboy 7y ago

Not really. If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Understanding it may require more time that you were willing to spend on share your ideas with the world. So if you really want to share you move to some big platform that handles it all for you. The law is already so complex that even within a single country or a state, people who study it need specialisations. Regulators have no grasp regarding existing laws or full extent of laws they are voting for. It's madness. Small business that government or a big company doesn't like can already be killed by thousand cuts because they don't have infinite amount of money to spend on lawyers.

Nextgrid 7y ago
You already have server logs for analytics. What you refer to as “analytics” is actually stalking and I’m glad we have regulation around it now. By the way, you don’t need to display a warning, you need to ask for consent in a non-intrusive way (consent should be freely given). Or just you know, don’t stalk people. Seems like an easy enough solution.
qwsxyh 7y ago
> If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Not having both of those is a good thing, so I see no downside.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Not having comments on anything personal is a good thing with zero downside?
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    Hacker News and Reddit comments have made me sure that comments are never a good thing.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
simpss 7y ago
no, GDPR does not have any effect on personal websites. Article 2 of GDPR defines the scope of the law. > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
- comboy 7y ago
  If I had a website about programming and it had a forum part is it purely personal? What if is it just comment section? What if I had ads to cover server costs vs when I don't have them now? I closed the website because I don't know. And I don't think I would say I know until I hire a lawyer. Re analytics part from another comment, I only care how they interact with my website. Without sharing that info with anybody. You could avoid cookies if you really wanted to but then you actually collect more data about your visitors.
  - arbitrage 7y ago
    What if aliens came down and probed your butt? You're throwing about ridiculously obscure edge cases that don't really matter to the point at hand.
    - comboy 7y ago
      It may not matter to you, for me it represents more than 10 years during which I've put thousands of hours into it. Apart from that, an internet forum doesn't seem like a ridiculously obscure edge case.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      A law that applies to large swatch of regular, benign behavior of people and makes it illegal is not a good law. If that benign behavior is not targeted and the law is used to good effect, it may be beneficial in the short term, and be useful, but it is not good, because it gives the state extra leverage against normal people that they can apply it unevenly. A decade from now, the state might target certain sites with forums that say things they don't approve of, and use these laws to do so. Is giving the state more tools to circumvent freedoms like freedom of speech due to technicalities a good thing? How about in stead of making a law that blankets many benign interactions and relying on enforcement of only actual problems be up to the opinion of the enforcers, we try to target the actual problem behavior as tightly as possible, and then identify the edges where problem behavior exists and pass new legislation to apply to that?