4 ms·
It is the EU's job to do both, but neither is done to the exclusion of the other. We are lucky to have such a privacy-focused federal body which can bring about
by JonAtkinson 7y ago
It is the EU's job to do both, but neither is done to the exclusion of the other. We are lucky to have such a privacy-focused federal body which can bring about change effectively. I'm thrilled at the passing of GDPR, for example.
- blibble 7y agothe result of the GDPR was to increase Google's European ad market share[1] and the massively increased compliance costs will ensure that no domestic small competitor will ever be able to challenge their position that's some effective change [1]: https://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-facebook-google-privacy-data-6-months-in-europes-privacy-revolution-favors-google-facebook/ https://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-facebook-google-privacy...
- TeMPOraL 7y agoThat's not necessarily a bad thing. Innovation and healthy competition in adtech space is a problem; the industry needs to die, not grow.
- bb822 7y ago... What?
- cuban-frisbee 7y agoMass surveillance for the the purpose of more targeted ads are bad for society.
- bb822 7y agoCool. The point was that his comment was a non-sequitor. The EU strengthening Google's monopoly position will not make advertising go away.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoNo, but it will slow the innovation in that space, which I consider to be a positive development. It's on-topic, because slowing innovation is why people are complaining about Google's position being strengthened. (Also, my perhaps naive hope is that the better the Google's market share here, the more damage will be caused by EU regulating the space.)
- cuban-frisbee 7y agoHis point it seems, was that strengthening Googles position (by making it harder for competitors to comply) was a price worth paying for stronger privacy protection afforded by the GDPR legislation.