6 ms·

Comments from FB are boatloads of bullshit, as expected. How nice to see that not everybody lets themselves get fucked over by them as a matter of course, like

Comments from FB are boatloads of bullshit, as expected. How nice to see that not everybody lets themselves get fucked over by them as a matter of course, like in the US. Cheers to Ireland.

sneak 7y ago
The only people being fucked over here are consumers who are being denied free choice in the list of services they might voluntarily use. I hate surveillance as much as anyone, but it's hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone's website launch is being censored by the state.
- hobs 7y ago
  Insert comment about how asbestos removal only fucked over consumer choice. If you cant meet basics of compliance, dont be surprised that your website that is a giant trove of personal information is regulated.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    Asbestos apparently kills 255,000 people annually (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982039/). How many people has Facebook killed? "Asbestos killed millions of people, and I don't like Facebook, so we should treat Facebook the same as asbestos" is not a valid argument.
    - hobs 7y ago
      Nobody made the claim we should treat fb the same as asbestos - I didn't say we should ban using it from all places, or that it causes cancer or w/e. If your business has something that causes externalities and you dont pay for them, the government is going to(hopefully!) regulate you from screwing the rest of us over, or selling dangerous products to consumers for cheaper because of "choice". If you claim that choice is impacted and that's a bad thing you actually need to prove the counter claim - that the activity you are doing is SO IMPORTANT to us as a society its worth going around our standard operating procedures.
      - logicchains 7y ago
        >If you claim that choice is impacted and that's a bad thing you actually need to prove the counter claim - that the activity you are doing is SO IMPORTANT to us as a society its worth going around our standard operating procedures. To me that sounds like a nightmarish world to live in, one in which you have no rights except what others choose to grant you. What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof should be on the accusers claiming harm, otherwise we might as well just completely stop advancing as a species, because anything we change could possibly harm someone in some unspecified way.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        > What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't apply to Facebook. They've repeatedly shown themselves to be guilty.
        logicchains 7y ago
        People here keep claiming that but I haven't seen any examples presented that actually try to quantify whatever harm it is they've caused.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        They've repeatedly mishandled and mismanaged users' private data. No, it's not benign even if "no one died".
        logicchains 7y ago
        So have many other companies, and even some governments have leaked citizen data. Do you really think the other dating sites currently working Europe have better OpSec or gather significantly less data than Facebook?
        sgift 7y ago
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      "Just because some other thing is so much worse we should ignore the bad thing". Got it.
      - logicchains 7y ago
        No, "we should ban X because we ban Y and Y is bad" is not a reasonable argument because "bad" is a matter of degree. That argument only works if we can show X is as bad as y.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        No. "We should ban X because we know that X is bad and we have a long standing tradition of banning bad things. See Y, Z, etc. for examples of other bad things that were eventually banned."
        logicchains 7y ago
        But the "bad" in that case is meaningless then if the harm from Y and Z is orders of magnitude greater than any harm that's been demonstrated from X.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        "We shouldn't prosecute thieves. The harm is meaningless compared to genocide".
        logicchains 7y ago
        More like "We shouldn't jail jaywalkers, the harm is meaningless compared to thieves".
        dmitriid 7y ago
        It really isn't. Data protection laws have been in place in Europe for way longer than GDPR. They all basically say this: you must protect private and personally identifiable data of people. Nearly every single tech company did nothing to protect that data. Especially the international behemoths like Facebook. Then the EU unified the different data protection laws into a single one: GDPR. And said: up until now we were lax in protecting out citizens' rights. We're gonna stop doing that now. logicchains on HN: oh my god, how can you even think of enforcing this against a poor company who offers users choice. The same company that sells private data wholesale, tracks users even if they are not present on the site, regularly breaches privacy laws, explicitly targeted teenagers for behavioural research, prevents users from permanently removing records from the service, retains data on a people even after removal from service, exposes private and sensitive data to thousands of advertisers, tracks users' locations despite opt-out, aggregates users' health data without their consent, lobbies against privacy protections, etc. etc. etc. Yes. That's exactly why GDPR exists and exactly why FB must comply with it.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  I hate pollution as much as anyone but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s paper mill launch is being censored by the state. I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. I hate sex trafficking as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s Russian bride catalog launch is being censored by the state. —— I guess my point is that your broad objection to government interference is completely meritless without considering the specific harms and benefits under discussion. The problem with surveillance is that the harms are distributed and delayed. Meanwhile Facebook does everything it can to obfuscate what these harms might even be.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    >I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. Do you realise how absurd you sound? Have you any idea of how tragic it is for a family to lose a loved one to cancer, how many people millions of people have died unnecessarily from smoking? Comparing Facebook to that sounds completely out of touch with reality, unless you can point me to the millions of people killed by Facebook.
    - giornogiovanna 7y ago
      No one suggested that surveillance is as bad as cancer. All that was said is that blocking Facebook dating has a similar effect on surveillance (in kind, not in degree) as banning tobacco has on cancer.
      - logicchains 7y ago
        Is that even true? Stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer by like over 90%, blocking Facebook doesn't change the fact that the Chinese and American spy agencies are still doing everything they can to record all your emails and personal communication. Degree matters, because the harm from censorship and restricting people's choices is a matter of degree, and if the harm avoided by the ban is a lower degree then it ends up as a net negative.
- o_p 7y ago
  Oh the horror, consumers will not be free to receive sub-standard products!
  - logicchains 7y ago
    Why not let them be the judge of it?
    - loriverkutya 7y ago
      Because there is a law about data protection and they don’t comply with the law. Very simple and easy.
      - logicchains 7y ago
        A law that takes away people's rights to visit the websites they want to. Just because something's made a law doesn't automatically make it right. It also seems like it's being selectively enforced; is Ashley Madison banned in Europe? Do you think they have better privacy/opsec practices than Facebook?
        icebraining 7y ago
        Facebook isn't banned. Still, don't worry, the data privacy regulators will come for them too; FB is a priority for the sheer number of users and how pervasive it is.
    - o_p 7y ago
      Because I would really hate doing quality testing for every single product I consume. Rather let the goverment do its damn job
      - logicchains 7y ago
        If that was the problem, the government could just publish a registry: "companies that will violate your data and spill your privacy", broadcast it on public TV. And make the site display a warning upon opening it. That way people have the information and they still get to make the decision themselves.
- allovernow 7y ago
  I used to feel that way, but the older I get the more I realize that the average consumer is a moron and can't be trusted to even attempt to vet most services. I don't know what the answer is, because I hate the idea of limiting the rights of those who are competent and responsible in order to protect those who are not.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Most people become more authoritarian when they age. It is a common tendency.

Comments from FB are boatloads of bullshit, as expected. How nice to see that not everybody lets themselves get fucked over by them as a matter of course, like in the US. Cheers to Ireland.

sneak 7y ago

The only people being fucked over here are consumers who are being denied free choice in the list of services they might voluntarily use. I hate surveillance as much as anyone, but it's hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone's website launch is being censored by the state.

hobs 7y ago
Insert comment about how asbestos removal only fucked over consumer choice. If you cant meet basics of compliance, dont be surprised that your website that is a giant trove of personal information is regulated.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Asbestos apparently kills 255,000 people annually (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982039/). How many people has Facebook killed? "Asbestos killed millions of people, and I don't like Facebook, so we should treat Facebook the same as asbestos" is not a valid argument.
  - hobs 7y ago
    Nobody made the claim we should treat fb the same as asbestos - I didn't say we should ban using it from all places, or that it causes cancer or w/e. If your business has something that causes externalities and you dont pay for them, the government is going to(hopefully!) regulate you from screwing the rest of us over, or selling dangerous products to consumers for cheaper because of "choice". If you claim that choice is impacted and that's a bad thing you actually need to prove the counter claim - that the activity you are doing is SO IMPORTANT to us as a society its worth going around our standard operating procedures.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      >If you claim that choice is impacted and that's a bad thing you actually need to prove the counter claim - that the activity you are doing is SO IMPORTANT to us as a society its worth going around our standard operating procedures. To me that sounds like a nightmarish world to live in, one in which you have no rights except what others choose to grant you. What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof should be on the accusers claiming harm, otherwise we might as well just completely stop advancing as a species, because anything we change could possibly harm someone in some unspecified way.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        > What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't apply to Facebook. They've repeatedly shown themselves to be guilty.
        logicchains 7y ago
        People here keep claiming that but I haven't seen any examples presented that actually try to quantify whatever harm it is they've caused.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        They've repeatedly mishandled and mismanaged users' private data. No, it's not benign even if "no one died".
        logicchains 7y ago
        So have many other companies, and even some governments have leaked citizen data. Do you really think the other dating sites currently working Europe have better OpSec or gather significantly less data than Facebook?
        sgift 7y ago
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    "Just because some other thing is so much worse we should ignore the bad thing". Got it.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      No, "we should ban X because we ban Y and Y is bad" is not a reasonable argument because "bad" is a matter of degree. That argument only works if we can show X is as bad as y.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        No. "We should ban X because we know that X is bad and we have a long standing tradition of banning bad things. See Y, Z, etc. for examples of other bad things that were eventually banned."
        logicchains 7y ago
        But the "bad" in that case is meaningless then if the harm from Y and Z is orders of magnitude greater than any harm that's been demonstrated from X.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        "We shouldn't prosecute thieves. The harm is meaningless compared to genocide".
        logicchains 7y ago
        More like "We shouldn't jail jaywalkers, the harm is meaningless compared to thieves".
        dmitriid 7y ago
        It really isn't. Data protection laws have been in place in Europe for way longer than GDPR. They all basically say this: you must protect private and personally identifiable data of people. Nearly every single tech company did nothing to protect that data. Especially the international behemoths like Facebook. Then the EU unified the different data protection laws into a single one: GDPR. And said: up until now we were lax in protecting out citizens' rights. We're gonna stop doing that now. logicchains on HN: oh my god, how can you even think of enforcing this against a poor company who offers users choice. The same company that sells private data wholesale, tracks users even if they are not present on the site, regularly breaches privacy laws, explicitly targeted teenagers for behavioural research, prevents users from permanently removing records from the service, retains data on a people even after removal from service, exposes private and sensitive data to thousands of advertisers, tracks users' locations despite opt-out, aggregates users' health data without their consent, lobbies against privacy protections, etc. etc. etc. Yes. That's exactly why GDPR exists and exactly why FB must comply with it.
AlexandrB 7y ago
I hate pollution as much as anyone but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s paper mill launch is being censored by the state. I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. I hate sex trafficking as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s Russian bride catalog launch is being censored by the state. —— I guess my point is that your broad objection to government interference is completely meritless without considering the specific harms and benefits under discussion. The problem with surveillance is that the harms are distributed and delayed. Meanwhile Facebook does everything it can to obfuscate what these harms might even be.
- logicchains 7y ago
  >I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. Do you realise how absurd you sound? Have you any idea of how tragic it is for a family to lose a loved one to cancer, how many people millions of people have died unnecessarily from smoking? Comparing Facebook to that sounds completely out of touch with reality, unless you can point me to the millions of people killed by Facebook.
  - giornogiovanna 7y ago
    No one suggested that surveillance is as bad as cancer. All that was said is that blocking Facebook dating has a similar effect on surveillance (in kind, not in degree) as banning tobacco has on cancer.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      Is that even true? Stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer by like over 90%, blocking Facebook doesn't change the fact that the Chinese and American spy agencies are still doing everything they can to record all your emails and personal communication. Degree matters, because the harm from censorship and restricting people's choices is a matter of degree, and if the harm avoided by the ban is a lower degree then it ends up as a net negative.
o_p 7y ago
Oh the horror, consumers will not be free to receive sub-standard products!
- logicchains 7y ago
  Why not let them be the judge of it?
  - loriverkutya 7y ago
    Because there is a law about data protection and they don’t comply with the law. Very simple and easy.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      A law that takes away people's rights to visit the websites they want to. Just because something's made a law doesn't automatically make it right. It also seems like it's being selectively enforced; is Ashley Madison banned in Europe? Do you think they have better privacy/opsec practices than Facebook?
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Facebook isn't banned. Still, don't worry, the data privacy regulators will come for them too; FB is a priority for the sheer number of users and how pervasive it is.
  - o_p 7y ago
    Because I would really hate doing quality testing for every single product I consume. Rather let the goverment do its damn job
    - logicchains 7y ago
      If that was the problem, the government could just publish a registry: "companies that will violate your data and spill your privacy", broadcast it on public TV. And make the site display a warning upon opening it. That way people have the information and they still get to make the decision themselves.
allovernow 7y ago
I used to feel that way, but the older I get the more I realize that the average consumer is a moron and can't be trusted to even attempt to vet most services. I don't know what the answer is, because I hate the idea of limiting the rights of those who are competent and responsible in order to protect those who are not.
- sneak 7y ago
  Most people become more authoritarian when they age. It is a common tendency.