4 ms·

A lot of this gets into whether you think punishment is the desired outcome or behavioral changes. There has been a real and definite shift in the industry pos

A lot of this gets into whether you think punishment is the desired outcome or behavioral changes. There has been a real and definite shift in the industry post GDPR away from "we might need this data someday" to "please delete it at the first opportunity".

M2Ys4U 6y ago
> A lot of this gets into whether you think punishment is the desired outcome or behavioral changes. It's both, surely. Behavioural change won't last unless there are punishments for non-compliance.
- readams 6y ago
  Surely, you don't think punishment is an end in itself?
gerland 6y ago
Punishment is always the desired outcome in the journalist world. If something dramatic does not happen, then from the perspective of NY Times nothing has happened at all. There is no story, no people to smear that were the villains, no heroes to glorify that fought for GDPR. The reality is, that the mundane often impacts our lives much more than the exciting. Small incremental changes that we do not notice shape our reality. The same way that NY Times slowly became a parody of itself, the GDPR slowly changes the web. I still think that we need more time to put this into perspecive and we need more initiatives that build on top of GDPR really stands for.
- whatsmyusername 6y ago
  Ok boomer
- dexen 6y ago
  Underrated comment. Perhaps because it's laying out a mundane case, rather than making bombastic claims...
  - gerland 6y ago
    The point is that we often overlook the things that really shape our reality. What every ideological and/or political movement knows is that no one will fight the ideology if it's fed in very small increments. We will simply overlook it as insignificant. If you try to nitpick on small things then you're sure to become the laughing stock. It's the same mechanism, but for once it works in our favor. I was a bit sad when I saw the initial downvotes, since this account was already 4 times below zero points in total and I don't think there was anything that broke the rules in that comment. I guess I was looking down on NYT, but at this point the collapse of journalism is not an opinion, but a measurable truth. You can just measure it by average salary in the domain. I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%.
    - dexen 6y ago
      I hear you. One nitpick if you don't mind. >I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%. That is exactly backwards. The journalism never was truthful; instead it was full of lies by omission, manipulation to push a narrative, and plain mistakes made in the rush to be the first to publish. What changed[1] is the seasoned staff is now largely gone and replaced with low-paid youth fresh off of the school. It's through the lacking experience and missing professionalism that the mask slips, and we now get to see how the sausage is made. Paradoxically now that we get to see how bad it gets at times, the spotty trustworthiness becomes a known quantity, and so we can handle it better. -- [1] aside of the amusing tools like "NewsDiffs" (https://twitter.com/newsdiffs https://twitter.com/newsdiffs), or https://archive.is/ https://archive.is/
      - gerland 6y ago
        I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news outlets. It you have only few suppliers in any domain, then a possibility of a "price war" is relatively small. It's much easier to predict how our counterparts will behave and dumping prices hurts all the participants. It forces the competition to move to different areas - like marketing and quality of service. Once there were more competitors, due to the internet being a thing, all bets were off. No one could hold to their position just because he was considered more reliable by a marginal degree.
buboard 6y ago
more like "we 'll find this data another way. google sells them"

M2Ys4U 6y ago

> A lot of this gets into whether you think punishment is the desired outcome or behavioral changes. It's both, surely. Behavioural change won't last unless there are punishments for non-compliance.

readams 6y ago
Surely, you don't think punishment is an end in itself?

gerland 6y ago

Punishment is always the desired outcome in the journalist world. If something dramatic does not happen, then from the perspective of NY Times nothing has happened at all. There is no story, no people to smear that were the villains, no heroes to glorify that fought for GDPR. The reality is, that the mundane often impacts our lives much more than the exciting. Small incremental changes that we do not notice shape our reality. The same way that NY Times slowly became a parody of itself, the GDPR slowly changes the web. I still think that we need more time to put this into perspecive and we need more initiatives that build on top of GDPR really stands for.

whatsmyusername 6y ago
Ok boomer
dexen 6y ago
Underrated comment. Perhaps because it's laying out a mundane case, rather than making bombastic claims...
- gerland 6y ago
  The point is that we often overlook the things that really shape our reality. What every ideological and/or political movement knows is that no one will fight the ideology if it's fed in very small increments. We will simply overlook it as insignificant. If you try to nitpick on small things then you're sure to become the laughing stock. It's the same mechanism, but for once it works in our favor. I was a bit sad when I saw the initial downvotes, since this account was already 4 times below zero points in total and I don't think there was anything that broke the rules in that comment. I guess I was looking down on NYT, but at this point the collapse of journalism is not an opinion, but a measurable truth. You can just measure it by average salary in the domain. I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%.
  - dexen 6y ago
    I hear you. One nitpick if you don't mind. >I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%. That is exactly backwards. The journalism never was truthful; instead it was full of lies by omission, manipulation to push a narrative, and plain mistakes made in the rush to be the first to publish. What changed[1] is the seasoned staff is now largely gone and replaced with low-paid youth fresh off of the school. It's through the lacking experience and missing professionalism that the mask slips, and we now get to see how the sausage is made. Paradoxically now that we get to see how bad it gets at times, the spotty trustworthiness becomes a known quantity, and so we can handle it better. -- [1] aside of the amusing tools like "NewsDiffs" (https://twitter.com/newsdiffs https://twitter.com/newsdiffs), or https://archive.is/ https://archive.is/
    - gerland 6y ago
      I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news outlets. It you have only few suppliers in any domain, then a possibility of a "price war" is relatively small. It's much easier to predict how our counterparts will behave and dumping prices hurts all the participants. It forces the competition to move to different areas - like marketing and quality of service. Once there were more competitors, due to the internet being a thing, all bets were off. No one could hold to their position just because he was considered more reliable by a marginal degree.

buboard 6y ago

more like "we 'll find this data another way. google sells them"