4 ms·

I fully understand your point that GDPR hasn't been good for investment or startups, and that that the likelihood of a startup succeeding to reach sustainabilit

by maldeh 7y ago

I fully understand your point that GDPR hasn't been good for investment or startups, and that that the likelihood of a startup succeeding to reach sustainability in the european field has significantly diminished. What I'm rejecting is that that's necessarily an undesirable state of affairs. Does the world really need the likes of Blur or DiscountMugs to succeed, when they have proven woefully incapable of protecting the most basic forms of user data? The tech economy seeing such upheaval right now could be construed as a signal demonstrating how dependent it was on fundamentally unhealthy and untenable data practices that were previously endemic to the industry. I'm sorry that you have had to spend a tonne of money to attain GDPR compliance. I imagine most "incumbents" have had to spend a good deal as well; I can only hope that the next generation of companies have learnt from your company's mistakes and to structure their data processes from day 1 to avoid accruing such sensitive data in the first place. At any rate - a tech sector is possible. A thriving one, that can sustain as much employment? Maybe not quite, there'd have to be some adjustments; but the people would be better off. A tech sector with the same market cap? Unlikely, but we need to get over ourselves and question if preserving the techocracy's wealth is more important here.

ggreer 7y ago
> What I'm rejecting is that that's necessarily an undesirable state of affairs. Does the world really need the likes of Blur or DiscountMugs to succeed, when they have proven woefully incapable of protecting the most basic forms of user data? Again, I'm saying that the cost is borne by all startups, not just the ones you don't like. For startups, the main cost of GDPR isn't fines, it's less investment money and more compliance costs. That means good startups and bad startups alike must pay the price. They have equal chances of being killed in the cradle by these costs. > I'm sorry that you have had to spend a tonne of money to attain GDPR compliance. I imagine most "incumbents" have had to spend a good deal as well; I can only hope that the next generation of companies have learnt from your company's mistakes and to structure their data processes from day 1 to avoid accruing such sensitive data in the first place. The costs weren't high because of anything we were doing that was out of the ordinary. GDPR affects you if you even keep source IP addresses in your server logs. It mandates processes as well as restrictions. You have to train employees. You have to pay lawyers to ensure your processes are compliant. Even if everything you're doing is totally unobjectionable, the costs are significant. Current evidence indicates that many new companies are solving this problem by incorporating outside of the EU and avoiding doing business with EU customers until they're large enough to afford the costs of compliance. > A tech sector with the same market cap? Unlikely, but we need to get over ourselves and question if preserving the techocracy's wealth is more important here. You seem to have a zero sum view of wealth. Tech companies create wealth. They make things people want. Preventing companies from existing doesn't help others (except for incumbents with inferior products).
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  > For startups, the main cost of GDPR isn't fines, it's attempting to be compliant. Yes, and all those pesky regulations around accounting and money-laundering and gambling are a terrible cost that all honest companies have to bear! > Tech companies create wealth. They make things people want. Yes, and if only slavery was still legal, lots of cotton plantations could be creating a lot of wealth and a lot of things that people want! > Preventing companies from existing doesn't help others Preventing certain companies from existing helps us humans in society, because we think our society would be worse off if companies could own slaves, pollute the environment as they pleased, laundered all the money they wanted, skipped paying all their taxes, or collected way too much personal data that it is a threat to individual privacy. Yes, the sum of all regulations that apply to anyone wanting to start a company is large and growing larger all the time, but the alternative is worse, which is why we put up with it.

by maldeh 7y ago

ggreer 7y ago

> What I'm rejecting is that that's necessarily an undesirable state of affairs. Does the world really need the likes of Blur or DiscountMugs to succeed, when they have proven woefully incapable of protecting the most basic forms of user data? Again, I'm saying that the cost is borne by all startups, not just the ones you don't like. For startups, the main cost of GDPR isn't fines, it's less investment money and more compliance costs. That means good startups and bad startups alike must pay the price. They have equal chances of being killed in the cradle by these costs. > I'm sorry that you have had to spend a tonne of money to attain GDPR compliance. I imagine most "incumbents" have had to spend a good deal as well; I can only hope that the next generation of companies have learnt from your company's mistakes and to structure their data processes from day 1 to avoid accruing such sensitive data in the first place. The costs weren't high because of anything we were doing that was out of the ordinary. GDPR affects you if you even keep source IP addresses in your server logs. It mandates processes as well as restrictions. You have to train employees. You have to pay lawyers to ensure your processes are compliant. Even if everything you're doing is totally unobjectionable, the costs are significant. Current evidence indicates that many new companies are solving this problem by incorporating outside of the EU and avoiding doing business with EU customers until they're large enough to afford the costs of compliance. > A tech sector with the same market cap? Unlikely, but we need to get over ourselves and question if preserving the techocracy's wealth is more important here. You seem to have a zero sum view of wealth. Tech companies create wealth. They make things people want. Preventing companies from existing doesn't help others (except for incumbents with inferior products).

henrikschroder 7y ago
> For startups, the main cost of GDPR isn't fines, it's attempting to be compliant. Yes, and all those pesky regulations around accounting and money-laundering and gambling are a terrible cost that all honest companies have to bear! > Tech companies create wealth. They make things people want. Yes, and if only slavery was still legal, lots of cotton plantations could be creating a lot of wealth and a lot of things that people want! > Preventing companies from existing doesn't help others Preventing certain companies from existing helps us humans in society, because we think our society would be worse off if companies could own slaves, pollute the environment as they pleased, laundered all the money they wanted, skipped paying all their taxes, or collected way too much personal data that it is a threat to individual privacy. Yes, the sum of all regulations that apply to anyone wanting to start a company is large and growing larger all the time, but the alternative is worse, which is why we put up with it.