5 ms·

Sorry, privacy as a personal responsibility has failed outright. For many services there is simply no (online, i.e. practically relevant) alternative, because n

Sorry, privacy as a personal responsibility has failed outright. For many services there is simply no (online, i.e. practically relevant) alternative, because none of the market players have an incentive to be privacy preserving (think major news outlets) or because the service is not interchangable due to network effects (facebook, twitter etc). The GDPR is actually sufficiently abstract IMO to make government enforcement possible and practical. And if you look at how tracking evolved, much of it is still the same old cookie-setting (from what, 25 years ago?) and the stuff that isn't (like ultrasonic profile matching and other shady stuff) is pretty clearly illegal. So it just needs political will on the national level where the enforcement agencies reside. Max Schrems' cases against facebook have shown time and again that these enforcement agencies are often simply unwilling to do their job, with the Irish one being a particularly bad example. But it is possible to do this. EDIT Also, regarding the personal responsibility aspect: we're being tracked by platforms we don't even have a user/customer relationship or any other contract with. Someone uploads a picture of me on facebook, and they build a profile based on that? Uncool. Is that a problem between me and the uploader? Certainly. Does that take responsibility from facebook to not mine that data? Nope.

Mirioron 6y ago
>For many services there is simply no (online, i.e. practically relevant) alternative, because none of the market players have an incentive to be privacy preserving (think major news outlets) or because the service is not interchangable due to network effects (facebook, twitter etc). But here's the big question: would these services have even existed in the first place if these laws had been in place? The internet has gained massive popularity because most of the resources on it are free. Look at porn - all of the known sites and run on ads, all the paid sites are essentially unknown. I don't know anybody who uses the latter. Wouldn't Facebook, Twitter, news sites etc have gone the same way if they required you to pay? Just look at what happens when a paywalled article gets posted. Either somebody posts a way to bypass it or a lot of people will never read the article.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I would go the other way with it -- the problem is we don't have a low overhead system for anonymous micropayments, so ads are the only competitive way to offer a service with a very low cost (and thus price) per use. If there was an easy way to anonymously pay the site the five cents they get from the advertiser without incurring 500% payment processing overhead then would sites even be using advertising? But then we get to much the same result. What we need isn't new privacy rules, it's to delete the old banking rules that prevent efficient payment systems from operating.
  - chillfox 6y ago
    The payment processing overhead has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with Mastercard and Visa having decided to not compete on fees.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Then why don't you go into competition with them and undercut them on fees, if the rules make it so easy? Why doesn't anybody?
      - anoncake 6y ago
        Barriers of entry exist and have nothing to do with rules.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    I agree that it would massively help, but I don't think it would solve the entire problem. A lot of my interests online were cultivated as a kid where even a 10 cent charge would've made me click away. I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue in highly developed countries, but it would've been a limiting factor for me.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      So the model that works best for micropayments in most cases is exponentially decreasing prices over time. When the content is new it costs $1, in two months it costs $.50, in two months more it costs $.25, and so on down to zero, at which point it becomes free proof of the quality of your work to get people to pay for the newer stuff. You can actually make more money using a pricing model like that, because you get to charge $1 to everyone who will pay $1 (everybody wants everything ASAP), but in a few months you still get the quarter from the guy who would only pay a quarter. And having a large volume of free old works to show the world you can produce good material is how you get new customers. Which also solves the problem for people without money. (This is, incidentally, how copyright was originally intended to work. Screw you again, Mickey Mouse.)

Mirioron 6y ago

>For many services there is simply no (online, i.e. practically relevant) alternative, because none of the market players have an incentive to be privacy preserving (think major news outlets) or because the service is not interchangable due to network effects (facebook, twitter etc). But here's the big question: would these services have even existed in the first place if these laws had been in place? The internet has gained massive popularity because most of the resources on it are free. Look at porn - all of the known sites and run on ads, all the paid sites are essentially unknown. I don't know anybody who uses the latter. Wouldn't Facebook, Twitter, news sites etc have gone the same way if they required you to pay? Just look at what happens when a paywalled article gets posted. Either somebody posts a way to bypass it or a lot of people will never read the article.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
I would go the other way with it -- the problem is we don't have a low overhead system for anonymous micropayments, so ads are the only competitive way to offer a service with a very low cost (and thus price) per use. If there was an easy way to anonymously pay the site the five cents they get from the advertiser without incurring 500% payment processing overhead then would sites even be using advertising? But then we get to much the same result. What we need isn't new privacy rules, it's to delete the old banking rules that prevent efficient payment systems from operating.
- chillfox 6y ago
  The payment processing overhead has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with Mastercard and Visa having decided to not compete on fees.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Then why don't you go into competition with them and undercut them on fees, if the rules make it so easy? Why doesn't anybody?
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Barriers of entry exist and have nothing to do with rules.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  I agree that it would massively help, but I don't think it would solve the entire problem. A lot of my interests online were cultivated as a kid where even a 10 cent charge would've made me click away. I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue in highly developed countries, but it would've been a limiting factor for me.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    So the model that works best for micropayments in most cases is exponentially decreasing prices over time. When the content is new it costs $1, in two months it costs $.50, in two months more it costs $.25, and so on down to zero, at which point it becomes free proof of the quality of your work to get people to pay for the newer stuff. You can actually make more money using a pricing model like that, because you get to charge $1 to everyone who will pay $1 (everybody wants everything ASAP), but in a few months you still get the quarter from the guy who would only pay a quarter. And having a large volume of free old works to show the world you can produce good material is how you get new customers. Which also solves the problem for people without money. (This is, incidentally, how copyright was originally intended to work. Screw you again, Mickey Mouse.)