4 ms·

Let's say I have a club, you have to do certain things to gain membership to my club if you don't do those things you can't get in. How is that any different? T

by cglace 6y ago

Let's say I have a club, you have to do certain things to gain membership to my club if you don't do those things you can't get in. How is that any different? The club should be able to set the rules as it deems fit.

ratww 6y ago
The club still has to follow the law. You can't have a "murder club" and you can't have a "I don't follow the GDPR club".
- cglace 6y ago
  My point was about meeting requirements to gain access. Not about following the law. However, would it be against the law to have a club that is only open to ex-cons? I understand that the GDPR makes it illegal to make it necessary to consent to give up your data before gaining entry. I was just questioning that portion of the law. It would be a pointless conversation to question points of a law and have someone respond back "but that is the law".
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > However, would it be against the law to have a club that is only open to ex-cons? Actually, in some countries, outside narrow restricted cases like support groups, yes; criminal record is a protected class in some cases. However, being an ex-con isn't illegal. Having a club where you required members to consent to a crime being committed against them, which is more analogous here, wouldn't be legal.
    - cglace 6y ago
      It's only analogous because this law makes that act illegal if you change the law then it's magically legal again.
      - rsynnott 6y ago
        ... Well, yes. If you legalise murder, murder is legal. I’m not really sure what your point is.
        cglace 6y ago
        The law in question is the GPDR. I’m not sure what your point is. If you change the law to allow people to choose to consent or not see content then it is no longer illegal. If we can’t have that discussion because it is currently illegal then I guess it’s pointless.
        rsynnott 6y ago
        I mean, that change _could_ be made, but why on earth _would_ it be made? It would largely defeat this portion of the GDPR. Who actually wants that change beyond advertising companies?
        cglace 6y ago
        Why would it not be made? Each person has agency in the decision to share their data. If it is indeed _my_ data then _I_ should be able to choose to sell it or move on. Forcing a companies hand, I predict, will just move more content behind a paywall, decrease access to legitimate information and further fringe conspiracies.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You can sell your data for cash. But this thing where big sites say "data or else" isn't a proper negotiation. It's a contract of adhesion, and those get regulated for good reason. If things get moved behind expensive paywalls, that's a shame. But if there is more truely free access, or content behind paywalls that charge as much as an ad is worth, that can be a net benefit.
ardy42 6y ago
> The club should be able to set the rules as it deems fit. That's only true under ideological assumptions that are far from universal. I think most people would be OK with society putting reasonably-justified restrictions on the kinds of rules the club can set.
- cglace 6y ago
  Sure, I'm not a psychopath, I understand the usefulness of laws. I just don't think the restriction in question is reasonable. To me, it seems like a choice an individual should make for themselves: access or data?
  - ratww 6y ago
    That would create perverse incentives and make the web a worse place. The point of the law is quite clear: allowing people to use the web without having anyone force them into giving away personal information. Sure, some companies won't be able to be creepy to users, but that was an acceptable tradeoff to the law.
    - cglace 6y ago
      In theory, in practice users consent and move on. You’ve just added an annoying extra step on every site. Victory?
      - ratww 6y ago
        Collecting data and being annoying are entirely optional and a choice made by companies. The law is a still a partial victory for privacy.
        cglace 6y ago
        It may be optional but it seems to be the standard rather than the exception. I just don't see people really caring about their privacy. When given the choice between convenience and privacy people generally choose convenience. As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I just end up annoyed.
rsynnott 6y ago
Only if they're _legal_ rules. Otherwise you get into unconscionable contract land.

by cglace 6y ago

ratww 6y ago

The club still has to follow the law. You can't have a "murder club" and you can't have a "I don't follow the GDPR club".

cglace 6y ago
My point was about meeting requirements to gain access. Not about following the law. However, would it be against the law to have a club that is only open to ex-cons? I understand that the GDPR makes it illegal to make it necessary to consent to give up your data before gaining entry. I was just questioning that portion of the law. It would be a pointless conversation to question points of a law and have someone respond back "but that is the law".
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > However, would it be against the law to have a club that is only open to ex-cons? Actually, in some countries, outside narrow restricted cases like support groups, yes; criminal record is a protected class in some cases. However, being an ex-con isn't illegal. Having a club where you required members to consent to a crime being committed against them, which is more analogous here, wouldn't be legal.
  - cglace 6y ago
    It's only analogous because this law makes that act illegal if you change the law then it's magically legal again.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      ... Well, yes. If you legalise murder, murder is legal. I’m not really sure what your point is.
      - cglace 6y ago
        The law in question is the GPDR. I’m not sure what your point is. If you change the law to allow people to choose to consent or not see content then it is no longer illegal. If we can’t have that discussion because it is currently illegal then I guess it’s pointless.
        rsynnott 6y ago
        I mean, that change _could_ be made, but why on earth _would_ it be made? It would largely defeat this portion of the GDPR. Who actually wants that change beyond advertising companies?
        cglace 6y ago
        Why would it not be made? Each person has agency in the decision to share their data. If it is indeed _my_ data then _I_ should be able to choose to sell it or move on. Forcing a companies hand, I predict, will just move more content behind a paywall, decrease access to legitimate information and further fringe conspiracies.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You can sell your data for cash. But this thing where big sites say "data or else" isn't a proper negotiation. It's a contract of adhesion, and those get regulated for good reason. If things get moved behind expensive paywalls, that's a shame. But if there is more truely free access, or content behind paywalls that charge as much as an ad is worth, that can be a net benefit.

ardy42 6y ago

> The club should be able to set the rules as it deems fit. That's only true under ideological assumptions that are far from universal. I think most people would be OK with society putting reasonably-justified restrictions on the kinds of rules the club can set.

cglace 6y ago
Sure, I'm not a psychopath, I understand the usefulness of laws. I just don't think the restriction in question is reasonable. To me, it seems like a choice an individual should make for themselves: access or data?
- ratww 6y ago
  That would create perverse incentives and make the web a worse place. The point of the law is quite clear: allowing people to use the web without having anyone force them into giving away personal information. Sure, some companies won't be able to be creepy to users, but that was an acceptable tradeoff to the law.
  - cglace 6y ago
    In theory, in practice users consent and move on. You’ve just added an annoying extra step on every site. Victory?
    - ratww 6y ago
      Collecting data and being annoying are entirely optional and a choice made by companies. The law is a still a partial victory for privacy.
      - cglace 6y ago
        It may be optional but it seems to be the standard rather than the exception. I just don't see people really caring about their privacy. When given the choice between convenience and privacy people generally choose convenience. As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I just end up annoyed.

rsynnott 6y ago

Only if they're _legal_ rules. Otherwise you get into unconscionable contract land.