3 ms·

> Why can people not just have the browser block stuff if they don't want to be tracked? Because some information needs to be given for the website to function

> Why can people not just have the browser block stuff if they don't want to be tracked? Because some information needs to be given for the website to function - you can't block it without losing functionality so you need some way of giving the information while also letting the website know for which purposes it is allowed to use said information. The GDPR is not limited to just cookies - it covers all personal information, whether IP addresses, browser fingerprints or even manually-entered data (as part of a checkout form for example). > Why don't they focus on building more private alternatives first before fighting what's there You can't compete with free. Let's assume that you're running a business in a country where not paying taxes is common - in this case you will either not pay taxes either or go out of business because the non-tax-paying competitors undercut you. You also can't compete with a monopoly. Fixing the problem by levelling out the playing field will allow paid alternatives to compete.

eternityforest 5y ago
Paid alternatives can only compete if free "you are the product" services are killed off. There is no way I'd pay even a few dollars a month for some added privacy, because most of us don't work at FAANG companies and a few hundred dollars over a few years is not a trivial amount. If their plan is to kill off those free services.... They should be immediately stopped, for the disadvantages it will cause to low income people. What they could do is try to focus on zero-cost P2P/selfhosted tech, or focus on developing tech to make the paid services in the sub-3$ a month range total, where it might be more reasonable if it could replace all the "spy services" from Google Assistant to Tile Tracking to YoSmart door sensors to Amazon Sidewalk, without any performance hit. People should have the right to hide things. They should also have the right not to, unless you have a way to replace all the spyware-based services that so many people's live's would come crashing down without. It's not ideal, but in practical terms, I'd be royally screwed without those services, wheras if every three letter agency in the world had a live feed of a hidden camera in my bathroom... I wouldn't notice. Some people truly do need privacy. But at the same time... poor people need modern tech, so we don't waste all our food because we burnt it or left the fridge door open, and lose our wallet three times a year. How much practical damage is it worth, to prevent a mostly theoretical future risk?

eternityforest 5y ago

Paid alternatives can only compete if free "you are the product" services are killed off. There is no way I'd pay even a few dollars a month for some added privacy, because most of us don't work at FAANG companies and a few hundred dollars over a few years is not a trivial amount. If their plan is to kill off those free services.... They should be immediately stopped, for the disadvantages it will cause to low income people. What they could do is try to focus on zero-cost P2P/selfhosted tech, or focus on developing tech to make the paid services in the sub-3$ a month range total, where it might be more reasonable if it could replace all the "spy services" from Google Assistant to Tile Tracking to YoSmart door sensors to Amazon Sidewalk, without any performance hit. People should have the right to hide things. They should also have the right not to, unless you have a way to replace all the spyware-based services that so many people's live's would come crashing down without. It's not ideal, but in practical terms, I'd be royally screwed without those services, wheras if every three letter agency in the world had a live feed of a hidden camera in my bathroom... I wouldn't notice. Some people truly do need privacy. But at the same time... poor people need modern tech, so we don't waste all our food because we burnt it or left the fridge door open, and lose our wallet three times a year. How much practical damage is it worth, to prevent a mostly theoretical future risk?