5 ms·

> What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveilla

by dao- 7y ago

> What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?

scarejunba 7y ago
Well, then, I suppose that's where our disagreement lies. I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people so long as harm is not being done (hence I'm pro-CCPA in the ways it protects people from being harmed and disagree with it where does not actively protect from harm) and you have a different bar.
- dao- 7y ago
  > I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Okay, I'm happy to rewrite that whichever way you like, but I believe businesses are just groups of people. If you wish, consider that 'prefer to minimize regulation binding units of people or groups of people acting in concert'. I'm also content with it just being 'prefer to minimize regulation binding businesses or people so long as no active harm yada yada'.
    - dao- 7y ago
      I would submit that mass surveillance is doing harm, see Cambridge Analytica and other recent scandals.
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        Those were non-consensual, so yes, I'm on board with not allowing them.
emiliobumachar 7y ago
The core disagreement is that I might want to pay with data only for services to me, and this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed.
- dao- 7y ago
  > this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed. It doesn't. That's merely one way how businesses could comply with the law, the other option would be to look for better business models as I said in the comment you replied to.

by dao- 7y ago

scarejunba 7y ago

Well, then, I suppose that's where our disagreement lies. I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people so long as harm is not being done (hence I'm pro-CCPA in the ways it protects people from being harmed and disagree with it where does not actively protect from harm) and you have a different bar.

dao- 7y ago
> I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Okay, I'm happy to rewrite that whichever way you like, but I believe businesses are just groups of people. If you wish, consider that 'prefer to minimize regulation binding units of people or groups of people acting in concert'. I'm also content with it just being 'prefer to minimize regulation binding businesses or people so long as no active harm yada yada'.
  - dao- 7y ago
    I would submit that mass surveillance is doing harm, see Cambridge Analytica and other recent scandals.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Those were non-consensual, so yes, I'm on board with not allowing them.

emiliobumachar 7y ago

The core disagreement is that I might want to pay with data only for services to me, and this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed.

dao- 7y ago
> this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed. It doesn't. That's merely one way how businesses could comply with the law, the other option would be to look for better business models as I said in the comment you replied to.