7 ms·

> GDPR is quite decent as laws go; the problems you mention happen because the regulation enforcement is too weak. Displaying a cookie popup was never anything

> GDPR is quite decent as laws go; the problems you mention happen because the regulation enforcement is too weak. Displaying a cookie popup was never anything but an admission that you're doing something you're not supposed to. GDPR notices again mostly give the same evidence. A lot of them aren't even compliant. I honestly wish DPAs of EU member states would start beating these companies down until this bullshit stops. All that sites will do is do a cost assessment of whether it is worth serving those in the EU and just block the IP range and people that want to use those services will just use VPNs anyway (which is what I do when I am banned by IP from a site because of the GDPR rules). >Potayto, potahto. Capitalism structurally favors something resembling corporatism, because capital compounds - the more you have of it, the easier it is to get even more. The market is a dynamic system - what matters is what it evolves over time into. No it doesn't. Corporatism is a collusion with government. If governments were smaller, buying influence wouldn't be effective. You don't even understand what you are arguing. Yes the market is a dynamic system that why if you allow it to operate freely those companies that are abusing their position will start to lose market share when other competitors that don't will be more attractive to consumers. However once you involve regulation, then that mechanism doesn't happen because you just raised the bar higher for all the would be smaller players. Again you always want to frame it in the worst light. Anyway. Fuck this site, dissenting opinion is frowned upon here. So much for the hacker part.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
There's plenty of room for dissenting opinion here. But if you're going to offer up an argument for capitalist-libertarianism that isn't any more than a largely evidence-free rehash of the same positions that filled talk.politics.theory on usenet in the 1990s, then yeah, you're probably not going to see a lot of support. Offer up a cogent, evidence-filled position that genuinely causes people to say "huh! gonna have to think/read about this ..." and I'm fairly sure you'd see a different response.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  I've given my rationale. Calling it evidence-free when there are thousands of examples where it works and almost everytime there is government involvement it happens to be a mess. So piss off with you patronising response.
- HexagonalKitten 6y ago
  One huge error HN made was telling people that downvotes can be used to disagree. If a view is so rehashed that it was disproven in the 90s then surely a simple cut&paste would do your work for you and the ignorance would be challenged. Instead people simply downvote, thinking that this is approved and useful, without saying anything and it turns the site into an echo chamber where any questions to the standard view is unreadable. Because there are no limits on downvotes a few righteous groupthinkers can and often do downvote every post they disagree with, letting 2-3 people make a thread entirely ideologically "pure". This ease of driving a post invisible versus actually putting words to screen mean that the baying hounds always win. I admit I'm controversial in many of my opinions, but I posted what I thought was a very bipartisan post in the voting thread, about how we should fix the holes (and things that appear to be holes) in the system so that people trust it more next time and I was downvoted. The only acceptable message is that there wasn't a single fraudulent vote cast. And we don't know that. We hope, but the very existence of SD cards that can go missing, internet connected machines, and so many other things, means we can't verify this. Without misused downvotes someone would have called me a trumper, and I'd deny it, and my point would remain, and maybe other people would argue the points. It'd probably even get support and encourage more people to reconsider, if not reject voting machines in the future. But with disagree-downvotes it's just hidden because it's not immediately on point with the groupthink. This is why politics seems so radicalized. Moderate views get censored.
pushrax 6y ago
The major barriers to competing with Google/Amazon/Facebook etc are not regulatory hassles, by far. Even in highly regulated industries, like space launch vehicles, the additional cost of compliance over your own due diligence isn’t the biggest barrier. Also, consumers on average do a bad job of managing anticompetitive behaviour and harmful externalities, even if they know about them. Convenience and habit are strong motivators. And we need regulation to disincentivize companies from outright lying in the first place. Companies and people in a fully free market system won’t magically become rational automata that behave ideally. We’re only human. Our superpower is the ability to collectively leverage our individual specialization. Foresight for negative externalities is a specialization that needs regulation to be effective.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

There's plenty of room for dissenting opinion here. But if you're going to offer up an argument for capitalist-libertarianism that isn't any more than a largely evidence-free rehash of the same positions that filled talk.politics.theory on usenet in the 1990s, then yeah, you're probably not going to see a lot of support. Offer up a cogent, evidence-filled position that genuinely causes people to say "huh! gonna have to think/read about this ..." and I'm fairly sure you'd see a different response.

forest_dweller 6y ago
I've given my rationale. Calling it evidence-free when there are thousands of examples where it works and almost everytime there is government involvement it happens to be a mess. So piss off with you patronising response.
HexagonalKitten 6y ago
One huge error HN made was telling people that downvotes can be used to disagree. If a view is so rehashed that it was disproven in the 90s then surely a simple cut&paste would do your work for you and the ignorance would be challenged. Instead people simply downvote, thinking that this is approved and useful, without saying anything and it turns the site into an echo chamber where any questions to the standard view is unreadable. Because there are no limits on downvotes a few righteous groupthinkers can and often do downvote every post they disagree with, letting 2-3 people make a thread entirely ideologically "pure". This ease of driving a post invisible versus actually putting words to screen mean that the baying hounds always win. I admit I'm controversial in many of my opinions, but I posted what I thought was a very bipartisan post in the voting thread, about how we should fix the holes (and things that appear to be holes) in the system so that people trust it more next time and I was downvoted. The only acceptable message is that there wasn't a single fraudulent vote cast. And we don't know that. We hope, but the very existence of SD cards that can go missing, internet connected machines, and so many other things, means we can't verify this. Without misused downvotes someone would have called me a trumper, and I'd deny it, and my point would remain, and maybe other people would argue the points. It'd probably even get support and encourage more people to reconsider, if not reject voting machines in the future. But with disagree-downvotes it's just hidden because it's not immediately on point with the groupthink. This is why politics seems so radicalized. Moderate views get censored.

pushrax 6y ago

The major barriers to competing with Google/Amazon/Facebook etc are not regulatory hassles, by far. Even in highly regulated industries, like space launch vehicles, the additional cost of compliance over your own due diligence isn’t the biggest barrier. Also, consumers on average do a bad job of managing anticompetitive behaviour and harmful externalities, even if they know about them. Convenience and habit are strong motivators. And we need regulation to disincentivize companies from outright lying in the first place. Companies and people in a fully free market system won’t magically become rational automata that behave ideally. We’re only human. Our superpower is the ability to collectively leverage our individual specialization. Foresight for negative externalities is a specialization that needs regulation to be effective.