> When the argument is that the privacy groups have a perverse interest in opposing a specific rule because of donations from tech companies, it seems pretty re

> When the argument is that the privacy groups have a perverse interest in opposing a specific rule because of donations from tech companies, it seems pretty relevant that the tech companies already aren't actually violating that rule. You conveniently left out one of the two companies, and I wonder why you omitted that Facebook has actually been convicted of violating the rule. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/05/facebook-emails-suggest-considered-selling-users-personal-data/2214513002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/05/facebook-emai... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-leveraged-facebook-user-data-fight-rivals-help-friends-n994706 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-le... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/facebooks-failures-and-also-its-problems-leaking-data/578599/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/faceb... (There are more sources.) > But that isn't what they're talking about. They're talking about laws against selling user data, which the ISPs are doing (so there is a strong lobby against passing a law to prohibit it), but the tech companies generally aren't. Yes, Facebook totally got caught selling user data. > To prohibit what the tech companies are doing you would basically need a law against collecting user data, or something much more invasive and specific about what it could be used for than "don't sell it", and that's a whole different debate. Because then you run into problems like entrenching the incumbents by creating a complex regulatory environment that only huge tech companies can navigate. Which is why opponents try to tar them with "selling user data" instead, which is a lot easier to define and be opposed to, even though they aren't actually doing that. Such as... GDPR? > Political realities exist even when they're complicated and inconvenient. Mocking them doesn't make them go away. Totally agree. > The term originally dates from a time when "interviews" were a thing that happened after you actually agreed to be interviewed. Now the debate happens live on the internet and trolls get to ask their loaded questions in front of the public with the implication that you're guilty if you don't respond. What's your source?