4 ms·

And all for what, some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but making the web less profitable and entrenching big companies that can afford the wast

And all for what, some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but making the web less profitable and entrenching big companies that can afford the wasted resources of their legal team navigating it. Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. It reminds me a bit of legislation in other areas that aims to make something so inconvenient people give up on it, like the death by a thousand cuts to American gun owners with state laws making magazine limits smaller and smaller over time, banning this and that cosmetic feature that has no bearing on anyone's safety, etc. What is Europe's vested interest in doing this to the internet though, information control (regulate a few conglomerates instead of having to deal with a bunch of little sites, by stamping out the little sites) and spite towards America's much more prosperous tech sector?

matheusmoreira 7y ago
> making the web less profitable This could actually be a good thing. These days advertisers act as censors: all it takes is a bunch of complaints and a website's revenue stream gets pulled. The webmasters react by deleting the controversial content and avoiding the subject in the future. If this is what a profitable internet looks like it should probably die. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. How do you know? > stamping out the little sites Social media is responsible for this. Few people buy domains these days, it's much easier to register a name on some existing site. Most traffic originates from social media these days.
- vkou 7y ago
  > This could actually be a good thing. These days advertisers act as censors: all it takes is a bunch of complaints and a website's revenue stream gets pulled. The webmasters react by deleting the controversial content and avoiding the subject in the future. If this is what a profitable internet looks like it should probably die. This is how newspapers have operated for nearly a century, and how television operated for over 60 years. What do you expect will replace it? A reversion to the patronage system? I don't think Bloomberg or Murdoch paying for content to be made in the way they want it is going to be an improvement.
  - 0-O-0 7y ago
    I would love a return to patronage system, since now we have means to make it accessible and distributed.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Patrons whose interests are diametrically opposed to yours will outbid you. Patrons of billionaires will produce coverage favourable to them, and will have far broader reach than the guy begging for Patereon subs, likes, tweets, follows.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    > This is how newspapers have operated for nearly a century, and how television operated for over 60 years. Yes. They depend on advertising revenue and are worse off for it. Journalists have a duty to report facts accurately but they must also keep the advertisers happy. Due to this conflict of interest, newspapers lose trust and are perceived as having little integrity. Gotta wonder if the article is presenting a truth or some version of it that happens to be aligned with the interests of the people with the money. TV shows are sanitized for maximum advertiser appeal. Even when they push boundaries, it's carefully controlled by the networks. There are numerous and well-documented cases where they actively influenced the creative process. Gotta wonder what shows would be like if creators had true free expression. > What do you expect will replace it? I don't know. Hopefully something better. > A reversion to the patronage system? Perhaps. Would be great if we had some kind of crowdfunding or patronage system that lets people directly fund the creators they like. Art should work like an investment: large numbers of people invest in the studios they like and the work starts once enough capital has been raised. Since the money is guaranteed, creators get more freedom to do what they want. Since they'd be compensated before the work starts, copyright becomes irrelevant.
    - vkou 7y ago
      The reality is that vested interests (Billionaires and nation states and political parties) will have an easier time in buying more favourable journalism under a patronage system, than crowd-funders will.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  >> Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. > How do you know? Same way I know that that defining the ASCII code for T as 084 has never hurt anyone. It's an interpretation of information, independent of the human condition. Change my mind.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    Cookies are used to track users. Tracking users generates a huge amount of personal information. This data is stored in databases which run on computers. The security of servers can be compromised, leading to database leaks and the publication of people's information.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      The setting of the cookie (the HTTP protocol) is not responsible for hurting anyone. People are, through negligence. I would have accepted a case wherein a user in the arctic, with limited bandwidth, was hurt due to the cookie data interfering with the communication. Hand waving about a series of human failings being connected to a technology is not compelling. I guess it's the same argument as the "gun" isn't responsible for gun violence, excepting cookies aren't even designed to reveal information. Guns are definitely designed (in part) be used against people.
      - matheusmoreira 7y ago
        > The setting of the cookie (the HTTP protocol) is not responsible for hurting anyone. People are, through negligence. It's not just any cookie though. You specifically mentioned tracking cookies. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. These cookies exist for no purpose other than information collection. They aren't even required for the website to function. This isn't negligence, it's imprudence: being reckless with people's personal information, amassing large amounts of it in the name of profit without stopping to think about the consequences. This isn't unique to cookies either. It applies to every browser fingerprinting method.
mark_l_watson 7y ago
There is a very good book that I am reading that might change your mind: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff. Another book I really recommend is Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing - Resisting the Attention Economy. You make good points and I am not arguing with you, but I found theses two books really convinced me that some balance is required, and worthwhile.
saagarjha 7y ago
> And all for what, some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but making the web less profitable and entrenching big companies that can afford the wasted resources of their legal team navigating it. Ideally, big companies would be subject to the law just the same. However, small companies can get a head start by just not doing what they know they are not supposed to. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. It doesn't have to hurt me. I just don't like it and I don't want it, and that is a good enough reason for me to not give up my privacy.
dahart 7y ago
This comment seems a little misinformed. I don’t like the banners either, but you could study a little about the GDPR and what’s been happening. > some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing It hasn’t been all 100% positive, and doesn’t apply to everyone, but GDPR has definitely had an overall positive impact on digital privacy practices globally. I say this as founder of a for-profit US web company affected by the legislation. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. This is really demonstrably false. Tracking cookies, tracking pixels, and other tracking technologies, have been and are still being used to de-anonymize people and cross-correlate browsing behavior of people visiting sites other than the one they’re on. The concern is over privacy, and tracking cookies are a real threat to privacy, hence the legislation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

matheusmoreira 7y ago

> making the web less profitable This could actually be a good thing. These days advertisers act as censors: all it takes is a bunch of complaints and a website's revenue stream gets pulled. The webmasters react by deleting the controversial content and avoiding the subject in the future. If this is what a profitable internet looks like it should probably die. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. How do you know? > stamping out the little sites Social media is responsible for this. Few people buy domains these days, it's much easier to register a name on some existing site. Most traffic originates from social media these days.

vkou 7y ago
> This could actually be a good thing. These days advertisers act as censors: all it takes is a bunch of complaints and a website's revenue stream gets pulled. The webmasters react by deleting the controversial content and avoiding the subject in the future. If this is what a profitable internet looks like it should probably die. This is how newspapers have operated for nearly a century, and how television operated for over 60 years. What do you expect will replace it? A reversion to the patronage system? I don't think Bloomberg or Murdoch paying for content to be made in the way they want it is going to be an improvement.
- 0-O-0 7y ago
  I would love a return to patronage system, since now we have means to make it accessible and distributed.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Patrons whose interests are diametrically opposed to yours will outbid you. Patrons of billionaires will produce coverage favourable to them, and will have far broader reach than the guy begging for Patereon subs, likes, tweets, follows.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > This is how newspapers have operated for nearly a century, and how television operated for over 60 years. Yes. They depend on advertising revenue and are worse off for it. Journalists have a duty to report facts accurately but they must also keep the advertisers happy. Due to this conflict of interest, newspapers lose trust and are perceived as having little integrity. Gotta wonder if the article is presenting a truth or some version of it that happens to be aligned with the interests of the people with the money. TV shows are sanitized for maximum advertiser appeal. Even when they push boundaries, it's carefully controlled by the networks. There are numerous and well-documented cases where they actively influenced the creative process. Gotta wonder what shows would be like if creators had true free expression. > What do you expect will replace it? I don't know. Hopefully something better. > A reversion to the patronage system? Perhaps. Would be great if we had some kind of crowdfunding or patronage system that lets people directly fund the creators they like. Art should work like an investment: large numbers of people invest in the studios they like and the work starts once enough capital has been raised. Since the money is guaranteed, creators get more freedom to do what they want. Since they'd be compensated before the work starts, copyright becomes irrelevant.
  - vkou 7y ago
    The reality is that vested interests (Billionaires and nation states and political parties) will have an easier time in buying more favourable journalism under a patronage system, than crowd-funders will.
Supermancho 7y ago
>> Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. > How do you know? Same way I know that that defining the ASCII code for T as 084 has never hurt anyone. It's an interpretation of information, independent of the human condition. Change my mind.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  Cookies are used to track users. Tracking users generates a huge amount of personal information. This data is stored in databases which run on computers. The security of servers can be compromised, leading to database leaks and the publication of people's information.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    The setting of the cookie (the HTTP protocol) is not responsible for hurting anyone. People are, through negligence. I would have accepted a case wherein a user in the arctic, with limited bandwidth, was hurt due to the cookie data interfering with the communication. Hand waving about a series of human failings being connected to a technology is not compelling. I guess it's the same argument as the "gun" isn't responsible for gun violence, excepting cookies aren't even designed to reveal information. Guns are definitely designed (in part) be used against people.
    - matheusmoreira 7y ago
      > The setting of the cookie (the HTTP protocol) is not responsible for hurting anyone. People are, through negligence. It's not just any cookie though. You specifically mentioned tracking cookies. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. These cookies exist for no purpose other than information collection. They aren't even required for the website to function. This isn't negligence, it's imprudence: being reckless with people's personal information, amassing large amounts of it in the name of profit without stopping to think about the consequences. This isn't unique to cookies either. It applies to every browser fingerprinting method.

mark_l_watson 7y ago

There is a very good book that I am reading that might change your mind: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff. Another book I really recommend is Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing - Resisting the Attention Economy. You make good points and I am not arguing with you, but I found theses two books really convinced me that some balance is required, and worthwhile.

saagarjha 7y ago

> And all for what, some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but making the web less profitable and entrenching big companies that can afford the wasted resources of their legal team navigating it. Ideally, big companies would be subject to the law just the same. However, small companies can get a head start by just not doing what they know they are not supposed to. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. It doesn't have to hurt me. I just don't like it and I don't want it, and that is a good enough reason for me to not give up my privacy.

dahart 7y ago

This comment seems a little misinformed. I don’t like the banners either, but you could study a little about the GDPR and what’s been happening. > some feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing It hasn’t been all 100% positive, and doesn’t apply to everyone, but GDPR has definitely had an overall positive impact on digital privacy practices globally. I say this as founder of a for-profit US web company affected by the legislation. > Nobody has ever been hurt by a tracking cookie in the history of the internet. This is really demonstrably false. Tracking cookies, tracking pixels, and other tracking technologies, have been and are still being used to de-anonymize people and cross-correlate browsing behavior of people visiting sites other than the one they’re on. The concern is over privacy, and tracking cookies are a real threat to privacy, hence the legislation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]