3 ms·

My favorite thing about the GDPR is that it's both a secret plot to ruin Google and also a secret plot to protect Google, and I doubt even Google knows which it

My favorite thing about the GDPR is that it's both a secret plot to ruin Google and also a secret plot to protect Google, and I doubt even Google knows which it is.

manigandham 7y ago
There's nothing secret about it. Good regulation can help but it's very rare. Instead we have poor regulation done by politicians that don't understand the market or technology, and that always helps the incumbents.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Helping the incumbents isn't always a bad thing, despite what the startup world may say. In living bodies, weakening 'incumbents' against 'disruptors' is called "immunodeficiency".
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The market isn't a living body though, and it's not about whether it's good or bad, only that it helps. In this case, GDPR-style regulation only helps big companies that already have lots of users.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      A country and its economy may be seen like one, though. But regardless, the overhead-inducing parts of GDPR really kick in when a company grows past certain size (250 employees), at which point it should be perfectly capable of handling them. But more importantly, upstarts aren't some protected class. Just because an upstart can't compete against the incumbent without resorting to abuse of personal data, doesn't mean abuse of personal data should be allowed. GDPR protects regular citizens from collateral damage to their privacy caused by market competition. If incumbents can do a better job not abusing the data, maybe they should get the benefits. (Also, it's adtech we're talking about. Personally I want neither the upstarts nor the incumbents to exist, and I couldn't care less who GDPR privileges here.)
      - manigandham 7y ago
        Nobody is arguing against data privacy. It's how that's done which is the problem with GDPR. If you call every criticism of bad regulation as a defense of "abuse of personal data" then it's nothing more than an emotional argument. Adtech powers the internet and lets 99% of the content exist. Let's avoid the endless conversations over it. If you want every company to be treated the same, then every industry should be too.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I don't find much bad with GDPR. You can call this an emotional argument, but for me, it's a difference of priorities. I do believe GDPR is right and creating regulatory friction in the marketplace isn't something to be avoided at all costs - in particular, it's desirable when the regulated behavior is potentially harmful. RE adtech, I don't think we can avoid this conversation as long as all the problems this industry is causing persist. And I don't want to have every industry treated the same. In my books, adtech is right there with selling hard drugs on street corners, and factories polluting rivers; I'm fine with getting rid of all of them. I do not want that industry to grow. As for the "99% of the content", I'd honest to god happily see it disappear. It's mostly garbage that wastes people time; in particular, mass-produced content marketing tends to have negative information value, making people wronger than they were before reading it.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Again, it's not about the regulation or privacy. It's about how the regulation actually works and the processes and procedures it requires that are being debated, with the current implementation being a poor example that isn't really having the intended effect. > "adtech is right there with selling hard drugs on street corners, and factories polluting rivers" Those aren't industries and the trillion-dollar market caps of advertising companies speak to commercial value. The world is more than just you, so you don't speak for everyone and your singular interests do not matter at all in this discussion and you use an adblocker or stay off the internet if you want. I always take the time to have in-depth conversations about adtech here but you haven't said anything other than state an emotional position about what you want the world to be like. That leaves nothing to discuss.
  - pmart123 7y ago
    Long term, this is likely right. It’s very easy to stop looking over your shoulder once the competition seems to have disappeared.
summerlight 7y ago
Their intention was very likely ruining Google (and other US techs). But the result is inadvertently protecting Google. There's no conflict here; you're simply confused.

My favorite thing about the GDPR is that it's both a secret plot to ruin Google and also a secret plot to protect Google, and I doubt even Google knows which it is.

manigandham 7y ago

There's nothing secret about it. Good regulation can help but it's very rare. Instead we have poor regulation done by politicians that don't understand the market or technology, and that always helps the incumbents.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Helping the incumbents isn't always a bad thing, despite what the startup world may say. In living bodies, weakening 'incumbents' against 'disruptors' is called "immunodeficiency".
- manigandham 7y ago
  The market isn't a living body though, and it's not about whether it's good or bad, only that it helps. In this case, GDPR-style regulation only helps big companies that already have lots of users.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    A country and its economy may be seen like one, though. But regardless, the overhead-inducing parts of GDPR really kick in when a company grows past certain size (250 employees), at which point it should be perfectly capable of handling them. But more importantly, upstarts aren't some protected class. Just because an upstart can't compete against the incumbent without resorting to abuse of personal data, doesn't mean abuse of personal data should be allowed. GDPR protects regular citizens from collateral damage to their privacy caused by market competition. If incumbents can do a better job not abusing the data, maybe they should get the benefits. (Also, it's adtech we're talking about. Personally I want neither the upstarts nor the incumbents to exist, and I couldn't care less who GDPR privileges here.)
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Nobody is arguing against data privacy. It's how that's done which is the problem with GDPR. If you call every criticism of bad regulation as a defense of "abuse of personal data" then it's nothing more than an emotional argument. Adtech powers the internet and lets 99% of the content exist. Let's avoid the endless conversations over it. If you want every company to be treated the same, then every industry should be too.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I don't find much bad with GDPR. You can call this an emotional argument, but for me, it's a difference of priorities. I do believe GDPR is right and creating regulatory friction in the marketplace isn't something to be avoided at all costs - in particular, it's desirable when the regulated behavior is potentially harmful. RE adtech, I don't think we can avoid this conversation as long as all the problems this industry is causing persist. And I don't want to have every industry treated the same. In my books, adtech is right there with selling hard drugs on street corners, and factories polluting rivers; I'm fine with getting rid of all of them. I do not want that industry to grow. As for the "99% of the content", I'd honest to god happily see it disappear. It's mostly garbage that wastes people time; in particular, mass-produced content marketing tends to have negative information value, making people wronger than they were before reading it.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Again, it's not about the regulation or privacy. It's about how the regulation actually works and the processes and procedures it requires that are being debated, with the current implementation being a poor example that isn't really having the intended effect. > "adtech is right there with selling hard drugs on street corners, and factories polluting rivers" Those aren't industries and the trillion-dollar market caps of advertising companies speak to commercial value. The world is more than just you, so you don't speak for everyone and your singular interests do not matter at all in this discussion and you use an adblocker or stay off the internet if you want. I always take the time to have in-depth conversations about adtech here but you haven't said anything other than state an emotional position about what you want the world to be like. That leaves nothing to discuss.
- pmart123 7y ago
  Long term, this is likely right. It’s very easy to stop looking over your shoulder once the competition seems to have disappeared.

summerlight 7y ago

Their intention was very likely ruining Google (and other US techs). But the result is inadvertently protecting Google. There's no conflict here; you're simply confused.