2 ms·

It's obviously not a technical problem. The 30 days comes from the GDPR legislation. Spotify is just behaving like an obnoxious child that needs a good smackdow

by tpmx 6y ago

It's obviously not a technical problem. The 30 days comes from the GDPR legislation. Spotify is just behaving like an obnoxious child that needs a good smackdown from the EU. Howevever the GDPR also stipulates that this needs to happen without "undue delay". I'm not a lawyer specializing in EU law, but I think this wording was put there for the precise reason of being able to punish companies that behave like that. They'll get to them eventually.

jrockway 6y ago
I don't think that's fair. If the law sets the limit at 30 days, there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days. It is obviously a money-losing proposition to do it quickly, and the only reason it's an option at all is because of the law. I guess that makes it a reasonable compromise -- everyone is equally unhappy, but the world is a slightly better place. The reality is that "30 days" translates to "someone will run a script manually once a month" whereas something like "100 milliseconds" would force you to have automation. It's a reasonable tradeoff for rare events. There is a lot less engineering effort required, and that makes it cheaper.
- tpmx 6y ago
  You are reacting on just one part of the directive, even though I just told you about you another part. Seriously? What's the point?
- viraptor 6y ago
  > there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days There is. Any tiny issue puts you past 30 days and invites a slap from the regulator. There's a lot of space between 100ms and 30 days. If you can't run your monthly process twice a day instead for example, you're most likely delaying on purpose - that's the "undue delay" part. There's a company I know which decided not to pay any invoices until the last possible moment - which one day resulted in the electricity being cut to an office building with hundreds of people. Do you think that was a good decision in the end?
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
This seems like an extraordinarily hostile inference to draw from Spotify's statement about the maximum amount of time it'll take. Do you have some specific reason to think Spotify is engaging in undue delay?

by tpmx 6y ago

jrockway 6y ago

I don't think that's fair. If the law sets the limit at 30 days, there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days. It is obviously a money-losing proposition to do it quickly, and the only reason it's an option at all is because of the law. I guess that makes it a reasonable compromise -- everyone is equally unhappy, but the world is a slightly better place. The reality is that "30 days" translates to "someone will run a script manually once a month" whereas something like "100 milliseconds" would force you to have automation. It's a reasonable tradeoff for rare events. There is a lot less engineering effort required, and that makes it cheaper.

tpmx 6y ago
You are reacting on just one part of the directive, even though I just told you about you another part. Seriously? What's the point?
viraptor 6y ago
> there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days There is. Any tiny issue puts you past 30 days and invites a slap from the regulator. There's a lot of space between 100ms and 30 days. If you can't run your monthly process twice a day instead for example, you're most likely delaying on purpose - that's the "undue delay" part. There's a company I know which decided not to pay any invoices until the last possible moment - which one day resulted in the electricity being cut to an office building with hundreds of people. Do you think that was a good decision in the end?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

This seems like an extraordinarily hostile inference to draw from Spotify's statement about the maximum amount of time it'll take. Do you have some specific reason to think Spotify is engaging in undue delay?