5 ms·

Asking users for donations is a very different business model to Facebook's history of abusing user data. I'm somewhat perplexed that HN users are apparently un

Asking users for donations is a very different business model to Facebook's history of abusing user data. I'm somewhat perplexed that HN users are apparently unable to see the distinction. Besides which, someone writing an opinion piece for the guardian has no control over the business model.

raspasov 6y ago
I don't subscribe to the view that random internet companies should be regulated by nation states more than our discussion here on HN.com should be regulated. If it applies to FB.com, it can apply to any company or individual online.
- ChrisSD 6y ago
  I'm confused, what does that have to do with the Guardian's current business model?
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Would you agree that the CCP should be given a chance to regulate The Guardian's coverage of Hong Kong?
    - ChrisSD 6y ago
      What does that have to do with the Guardian asking their users for donations?
  - raspasov 6y ago
    I was not referring to them asking for donations. I was referring to their ad-supported business model where they trade some of their customer's attention/data for money.
    - ChrisSD 6y ago
      The only intrusive "ad" is their call to action for subscriptions/donations. The others appear in normal ad boxes on the page. The same type you get with most websites.
- Veen 6y ago
  The "internet" is not a place. It's a network of physical infrastructure located in nation-states. It is not somehow a realm of its own separate from the physical world. The laws of nation-states apply to Facebook, its staff, its infrastructure, and its offices as much as they apply to anyone else—and the same goes for other random internet companies, including HN.com. It's reasonable to argue against particular forms of regulation, but not that internet companies have some special nature that exempts them from regulatory oversight altogether.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    I disagree. The internet is something special and independent from any one nation. Like the moon.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      The internet may be, but individual websites aren’t

raspasov 6y ago

I don't subscribe to the view that random internet companies should be regulated by nation states more than our discussion here on HN.com should be regulated. If it applies to FB.com, it can apply to any company or individual online.

ChrisSD 6y ago
I'm confused, what does that have to do with the Guardian's current business model?
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Would you agree that the CCP should be given a chance to regulate The Guardian's coverage of Hong Kong?
  - ChrisSD 6y ago
    What does that have to do with the Guardian asking their users for donations?
- raspasov 6y ago
  I was not referring to them asking for donations. I was referring to their ad-supported business model where they trade some of their customer's attention/data for money.
  - ChrisSD 6y ago
    The only intrusive "ad" is their call to action for subscriptions/donations. The others appear in normal ad boxes on the page. The same type you get with most websites.
Veen 6y ago
The "internet" is not a place. It's a network of physical infrastructure located in nation-states. It is not somehow a realm of its own separate from the physical world. The laws of nation-states apply to Facebook, its staff, its infrastructure, and its offices as much as they apply to anyone else—and the same goes for other random internet companies, including HN.com. It's reasonable to argue against particular forms of regulation, but not that internet companies have some special nature that exempts them from regulatory oversight altogether.
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  I disagree. The internet is something special and independent from any one nation. Like the moon.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    The internet may be, but individual websites aren’t