3 ms·

Well, would you rather the site just not exist then? Because I'm pretty sure that most of these sites already aren't making much money. If you make it much much

Well, would you rather the site just not exist then? Because I'm pretty sure that most of these sites already aren't making much money. If you make it much much much harder for them to get money then they won't survive.

turbinerneiter 6y ago
So then shut them down. There is no human right to run a profitable website, there is however a human right to privacy. If you can't run a website without literally violating the users basic human rights, then just don't.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Users have a choice to use the website. Do you complain that a bar is violating your basic human rights if it has a camera in it? Should all bars with that be shut down? Same for shopping centers and everywhere else. If you don't like it then simply don't use the website. It's really not that difficult.
  - gpderetta 6y ago
    the GDPR does apply to a camera in a bar. As long as it is used exclusively for security and data purged regularly, it can be claimed to be required. Certainly the bar owner cannot distribute the videos without explicit consent. And yes, that can be problematic in many cases (for examples, capturing faces of people in a concert).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    GDPR definitely applies to cameras in bars or shopping centers - in fact, much more of GDPR enforcement has been about issues such as those, the web world is not that important. If a shopping center would want to distribute surveillance camera data to 'trusted partners' for marketing research without informed consent of the customers, that would definitely be a GDPR violation, and there would not be a "if you don't like it then don't go to that supermarket" situation but "if your supermarket can't survive without that income, then tough luck".
    - gpderetta 6y ago
      there is this misunderstanding that GDPR is only (or primarily) about cookies or even online presence.
  - wlll 6y ago
    > Users have a choice to use the website. Correct, and thankfully website operators don't get the choice to violate users privacy without consent.
smolder 6y ago
Yes, I would. I would prefer that adtech as it is became unviable. People will come up with better schemes to pay for content online. Just showing ads without the ubiquitous targeting and tracking worked fine for television.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- forgotmylogin2 6y ago
  No, it didn't. It worked horrible for television. Every hour of television was filled with over 15 minutes of ads. It was horrible for the consumer.
  - smolder 6y ago
    The harm that can and most likely will be done by under-regulated trade of peoples intimate information is far greater than the harm of showing them ads. Targeted disinformation has already made a huge mess of US politics. Turning "personal computers", phones, and IoT junk into surveillance devices a la 1984 was either profoundly short-sighted and stupid or a very clever attack on individual liberty and agency, depending on intent of each actor involved. To the extent that knowledge is power, people are being tricked into giving up far too much. I say tricked because of what isn't immediately obvious when transacting with some tracking system on an otherwise free website: When you give up a small piece of seemingly insignificant data about yourself a million times per year, the aggregate is wildly more significant than the sum of those pieces. When you and everyone you know give up the aggregate of each persons aggregate information, again, its value is compounded. Finally, since no one has any insight into nor control over where their data ends up or how it's used down the road, the danger of sharing is even less evident. Good can and does come from transparency, but this is one-way transparency. It's top-down and is begging for abuse. If we had a truly voter-representative government, it would have already created laws to mitigate the easy-to-anticipate problems that arise from massive accumulations of personal information, and we would no doubt have a better, if less profitable, WWW as a result.

turbinerneiter 6y ago

So then shut them down. There is no human right to run a profitable website, there is however a human right to privacy. If you can't run a website without literally violating the users basic human rights, then just don't.

Mirioron 6y ago
Users have a choice to use the website. Do you complain that a bar is violating your basic human rights if it has a camera in it? Should all bars with that be shut down? Same for shopping centers and everywhere else. If you don't like it then simply don't use the website. It's really not that difficult.
- gpderetta 6y ago
  the GDPR does apply to a camera in a bar. As long as it is used exclusively for security and data purged regularly, it can be claimed to be required. Certainly the bar owner cannot distribute the videos without explicit consent. And yes, that can be problematic in many cases (for examples, capturing faces of people in a concert).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 6y ago
  GDPR definitely applies to cameras in bars or shopping centers - in fact, much more of GDPR enforcement has been about issues such as those, the web world is not that important. If a shopping center would want to distribute surveillance camera data to 'trusted partners' for marketing research without informed consent of the customers, that would definitely be a GDPR violation, and there would not be a "if you don't like it then don't go to that supermarket" situation but "if your supermarket can't survive without that income, then tough luck".
  - gpderetta 6y ago
    there is this misunderstanding that GDPR is only (or primarily) about cookies or even online presence.
- wlll 6y ago
  > Users have a choice to use the website. Correct, and thankfully website operators don't get the choice to violate users privacy without consent.

smolder 6y ago

Yes, I would. I would prefer that adtech as it is became unviable. People will come up with better schemes to pay for content online. Just showing ads without the ubiquitous targeting and tracking worked fine for television.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
forgotmylogin2 6y ago
No, it didn't. It worked horrible for television. Every hour of television was filled with over 15 minutes of ads. It was horrible for the consumer.
- smolder 6y ago
  The harm that can and most likely will be done by under-regulated trade of peoples intimate information is far greater than the harm of showing them ads. Targeted disinformation has already made a huge mess of US politics. Turning "personal computers", phones, and IoT junk into surveillance devices a la 1984 was either profoundly short-sighted and stupid or a very clever attack on individual liberty and agency, depending on intent of each actor involved. To the extent that knowledge is power, people are being tricked into giving up far too much. I say tricked because of what isn't immediately obvious when transacting with some tracking system on an otherwise free website: When you give up a small piece of seemingly insignificant data about yourself a million times per year, the aggregate is wildly more significant than the sum of those pieces. When you and everyone you know give up the aggregate of each persons aggregate information, again, its value is compounded. Finally, since no one has any insight into nor control over where their data ends up or how it's used down the road, the danger of sharing is even less evident. Good can and does come from transparency, but this is one-way transparency. It's top-down and is begging for abuse. If we had a truly voter-representative government, it would have already created laws to mitigate the easy-to-anticipate problems that arise from massive accumulations of personal information, and we would no doubt have a better, if less profitable, WWW as a result.