5 ms·

> Don't stalk people, and if you want to stalk them you need to ask them nicely and allow them to decline Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real w

by umvi 6y ago

> Don't stalk people, and if you want to stalk them you need to ask them nicely and allow them to decline Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real world a lot of people/sites rely on ad revenue, and ad revenue for the most part, requires tracking built in. So now if you legally force me to allow users to decline "stalking" you are basically allowing users to decline my monetization model and use my website/product for free. And why should I allow that? Why can't I say: "accept that my site is ad-supported or don't use my site?"

rocmcd 6y ago
You can? If the user doesn’t opt-in to advertising then you could simply not allow them to use the site... Note, I’m not in any way an expert on the legality of it, but this seems like a silly argument to make. If anything, being more up-front with the model may open alternative methods of monetization (subscription-based, etc).
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  You can not [1] (though this is definitely the clause that at least in the US, I'm confident would be beaten down in court). And this is why I have such a problem with the rule. Without some dramatic changes, any video streaming site almost surely wouldn't be able to handle the substantially lower ad revenue and still make a profit if everyone actually opted out. Sites like Facebook would probably turn a profit, but there's a large portion of the internet that would not survive when faced with 90% less revenue (untargeted ads payout drastically less). >“Freely given” consent essentially means you have not cornered the data subject into agreeing to you using their data. For one thing, that means you cannot require consent to data processing as a condition of using the service. They need to be able to say no. According to Recital 42, “Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.” [1] [1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/ https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/ EDIT: Come on can we not down vote just because you disagree here? It's just going to be come a circle jerk like most of Reddit if you guys keep this up... I linked a source even proving this OP wrong... from the official GDPR resource...
  - robin_reala 6y ago
    Is YouTube blocked in the EU? Let’s assume it’s turning a profit there, then start wondering how. The obvious answer is that monetised videos generally have a subject, and advertisements can be tied to that subject.
    - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
      I don't think Google has ever released the numbers on how many people have opted out, one can assume it's not 100%. And you are clearly tracked across Google services at least, as anyone who has ever google something shopping related, then viewed a youtube video can tell you. >The obvious answer is that monetized videos generally have a subject, and advertisements can be tied to that subject. The obvious answer to me is that not everyone opted out. Businesses generally want to make money, collecting data clearly made them more money, or they wouldn't have done it. Now they make less on those who opted out.
- Fargren 6y ago
  That's actually not allowed under GDPR. You can't deny access to a website based on whether a user accepted non-essential tracking.
hadrien01 6y ago
Your site can be ad-supported, without GDPR popup, as long as you don't track your users to display those ads. You could even have relevant ads by using keywords instead of user data. That's what the NYT has done, and they've seen their revenue grow: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  I just visited NYT's sit. It immediately set 20 cookies before asking for consent. It also loaded stuff from google.com sites. The options that appeared are (a) Accept (b) Manage Trackers Manage trackers leads to this page https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie Which seems to list lots of 3rd parties that will track me if I view the site. I'm told I have to go to their sites and opt out.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    That is absolutely in breach of the regulation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
a_imho 6y ago
Because the EU says you have it backwards? Ignoring European users is perfectly fine, but if you want to monetize them, you better play by their rules, unless you are more powerful than the EU. In theory. In practice do whatever you want.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > Ignoring European users is perfectly fine, See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23353051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23353051
  - msla 6y ago
    Not following a law I'm not subject to is perfectly fine. I'm free to insult the King of Thailand and drink scotch whisky all night long (as long as I don't die behind the wheel) contrary to the laws of Thailand and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    That comment speaks to the option of making access to the site conditional on agreeing to the cookies. That’s not relevant to the parent’s alternative —- as I understood it —- of unconditionally blocking European users entirely.
Nextgrid 6y ago
> in the real world a lot of people/sites rely on ad revenue I want to start a car rental business, however that requires upfront capital to buy the cars and I don't have that, so I'm gonna break the law and steal the cars to offer them up for rental. Is that what you're advocating for? Being in business is not a right; if your business model isn't sustainable without breaking the law then find a different one. > ad revenue for the most part, requires tracking built in Magazines are essentially full of ads and people actually pay for them and yet there's no tracking other than very generalized targeting (a car magazine will have car-related ads in it). Just because web advertising became the wild-west doesn't mean we should now legitimize it. > and use my website/product for free The biggest offenders (Google, Facebook, etc) don't even allow you the option to pay for it to decline tracking (and a lot of them track non-users as well; Google Analytics and the social media networks track people regardless of whether you're a user and agreed to their ToS/privacy policy). > Why can't I say: "accept that my site is ad-supported or don't use my site?" Because it's the law and the same reason why I can't walk into a store, start shoplifting and when caught say "sorry, should've read my ToS and not let me in if you disagreed with it". You are welcome to vote and nag your local politicians to amend the law if you believe it's wrong but until then you need to respect it regardless whether you agree with it or not. The advertising and marketing industry has proven it is unable to self-regulate so the law has now stepped in. The industry had many chances to clean up their act (the do-not-track header was one of these chances) and they clearly told us all to fuck off so now the GDPR is a stronger solution.
smichel17 6y ago
The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real world a lot of people/clothing companies rely on cheap manufacturing, and cheap manufacturing for for the most part, requires child labor. So now if you legally force clothing companies to allow consumers to decline "child labor" you are basically allowing consumers to reject clothing companies' monetization model and get their clothes at a loss to the company. And why should clothing companies allow that? edit: maybe I've couched my argument a little too much. I think it's a pretty good comparison, actually: I think most (but not all!) people agree that tracking and child labor are bad, but turn a blind eye because they enable cheap/free stuff.
- Aunche 6y ago
  The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because their parents spent to much money on entertainment.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    > The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right. Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of. --- I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.
SilasX 6y ago
I thought GDPR allowed you to put ads on your site? If you mean you’d prefer that the ads be based on personal user data, and you want collection of that data to be a condition of using your site, that’s a great debate to have, but not when you equate it with the possibility of having ads at all.
raverbashing 6y ago
DuckDuckGo does ads without tracking In fact, every advertisement outside of the web works without tracking/stalking the consumer. At most, you get a discount code for "seeing this ad on X place" > Why can't I say: "accept that my site is ad-supported or don't use my site?" Because that's the equivalent of me giving you my address, dob, SSN, etc just for entering your store
- umvi 6y ago
  > Because that's the equivalent of me giving you my address, dob, SSN, etc just for entering your store So what? If you don't want to give me those things (ad tracking isn't nearly that bad, btw), then don't enter my store. And likewise, if a consenting adult doesn't mind giving out that info in exchange for entering my store, why prevent them from doing so? Don't agree to my terms, don't enter my shop. It's as simple as that.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Well since you replied to me I'm going to require your SSN and date of birth as part of my privacy policy. Didn't like it, you shouldn't have replied to me. Sounds like you're the type of business the law was created for

by umvi 6y ago

rocmcd 6y ago

You can? If the user doesn’t opt-in to advertising then you could simply not allow them to use the site... Note, I’m not in any way an expert on the legality of it, but this seems like a silly argument to make. If anything, being more up-front with the model may open alternative methods of monetization (subscription-based, etc).

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
You can not [1] (though this is definitely the clause that at least in the US, I'm confident would be beaten down in court). And this is why I have such a problem with the rule. Without some dramatic changes, any video streaming site almost surely wouldn't be able to handle the substantially lower ad revenue and still make a profit if everyone actually opted out. Sites like Facebook would probably turn a profit, but there's a large portion of the internet that would not survive when faced with 90% less revenue (untargeted ads payout drastically less). >“Freely given” consent essentially means you have not cornered the data subject into agreeing to you using their data. For one thing, that means you cannot require consent to data processing as a condition of using the service. They need to be able to say no. According to Recital 42, “Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.” [1] [1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/ https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/ EDIT: Come on can we not down vote just because you disagree here? It's just going to be come a circle jerk like most of Reddit if you guys keep this up... I linked a source even proving this OP wrong... from the official GDPR resource...
- robin_reala 6y ago
  Is YouTube blocked in the EU? Let’s assume it’s turning a profit there, then start wondering how. The obvious answer is that monetised videos generally have a subject, and advertisements can be tied to that subject.
  - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
    I don't think Google has ever released the numbers on how many people have opted out, one can assume it's not 100%. And you are clearly tracked across Google services at least, as anyone who has ever google something shopping related, then viewed a youtube video can tell you. >The obvious answer is that monetized videos generally have a subject, and advertisements can be tied to that subject. The obvious answer to me is that not everyone opted out. Businesses generally want to make money, collecting data clearly made them more money, or they wouldn't have done it. Now they make less on those who opted out.
Fargren 6y ago
That's actually not allowed under GDPR. You can't deny access to a website based on whether a user accepted non-essential tracking.

hadrien01 6y ago

Your site can be ad-supported, without GDPR popup, as long as you don't track your users to display those ads. You could even have relevant ads by using keywords instead of user data. That's what the NYT has done, and they've seen their revenue grow: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079

gfxgirl 6y ago
I just visited NYT's sit. It immediately set 20 cookies before asking for consent. It also loaded stuff from google.com sites. The options that appeared are (a) Accept (b) Manage Trackers Manage trackers leads to this page https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie Which seems to list lots of 3rd parties that will track me if I view the site. I'm told I have to go to their sites and opt out.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  That is absolutely in breach of the regulation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

a_imho 6y ago

Because the EU says you have it backwards? Ignoring European users is perfectly fine, but if you want to monetize them, you better play by their rules, unless you are more powerful than the EU. In theory. In practice do whatever you want.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> Ignoring European users is perfectly fine, See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23353051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23353051
- msla 6y ago
  Not following a law I'm not subject to is perfectly fine. I'm free to insult the King of Thailand and drink scotch whisky all night long (as long as I don't die behind the wheel) contrary to the laws of Thailand and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
- SilasX 6y ago
  That comment speaks to the option of making access to the site conditional on agreeing to the cookies. That’s not relevant to the parent’s alternative —- as I understood it —- of unconditionally blocking European users entirely.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> in the real world a lot of people/sites rely on ad revenue I want to start a car rental business, however that requires upfront capital to buy the cars and I don't have that, so I'm gonna break the law and steal the cars to offer them up for rental. Is that what you're advocating for? Being in business is not a right; if your business model isn't sustainable without breaking the law then find a different one. > ad revenue for the most part, requires tracking built in Magazines are essentially full of ads and people actually pay for them and yet there's no tracking other than very generalized targeting (a car magazine will have car-related ads in it). Just because web advertising became the wild-west doesn't mean we should now legitimize it. > and use my website/product for free The biggest offenders (Google, Facebook, etc) don't even allow you the option to pay for it to decline tracking (and a lot of them track non-users as well; Google Analytics and the social media networks track people regardless of whether you're a user and agreed to their ToS/privacy policy). > Why can't I say: "accept that my site is ad-supported or don't use my site?" Because it's the law and the same reason why I can't walk into a store, start shoplifting and when caught say "sorry, should've read my ToS and not let me in if you disagreed with it". You are welcome to vote and nag your local politicians to amend the law if you believe it's wrong but until then you need to respect it regardless whether you agree with it or not. The advertising and marketing industry has proven it is unable to self-regulate so the law has now stepped in. The industry had many chances to clean up their act (the do-not-track header was one of these chances) and they clearly told us all to fuck off so now the GDPR is a stronger solution.

smichel17 6y ago

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real world a lot of people/clothing companies rely on cheap manufacturing, and cheap manufacturing for for the most part, requires child labor. So now if you legally force clothing companies to allow consumers to decline "child labor" you are basically allowing consumers to reject clothing companies' monetization model and get their clothes at a loss to the company. And why should clothing companies allow that? edit: maybe I've couched my argument a little too much. I think it's a pretty good comparison, actually: I think most (but not all!) people agree that tracking and child labor are bad, but turn a blind eye because they enable cheap/free stuff.

Aunche 6y ago
The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because their parents spent to much money on entertainment.
- smichel17 6y ago
  > The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right. Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of. --- I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.

SilasX 6y ago

I thought GDPR allowed you to put ads on your site? If you mean you’d prefer that the ads be based on personal user data, and you want collection of that data to be a condition of using your site, that’s a great debate to have, but not when you equate it with the possibility of having ads at all.

raverbashing 6y ago

DuckDuckGo does ads without tracking In fact, every advertisement outside of the web works without tracking/stalking the consumer. At most, you get a discount code for "seeing this ad on X place" > Why can't I say: "accept that my site is ad-supported or don't use my site?" Because that's the equivalent of me giving you my address, dob, SSN, etc just for entering your store

umvi 6y ago
> Because that's the equivalent of me giving you my address, dob, SSN, etc just for entering your store So what? If you don't want to give me those things (ad tracking isn't nearly that bad, btw), then don't enter my store. And likewise, if a consenting adult doesn't mind giving out that info in exchange for entering my store, why prevent them from doing so? Don't agree to my terms, don't enter my shop. It's as simple as that.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Well since you replied to me I'm going to require your SSN and date of birth as part of my privacy policy. Didn't like it, you shouldn't have replied to me. Sounds like you're the type of business the law was created for