3 ms·

> and they were powerless to change that. Don't use the service. > they no longer can be forced to be "the product" without their consent. Don't use the serv

> and they were powerless to change that. Don't use the service. > they no longer can be forced to be "the product" without their consent. Don't use the service. > when B is unnecessary for performing A. Technically unnecessary, the same way that the existence of goods in a shop is not dependent on whether or not I pay for them. But it sure has hell is necessary for the shop to keep functioning. The overwhelming majority of people are happy to sell their data for free services. How many Facebook movies need to be made before people are convinced that 1) the average person knows they are being tracked and 2) they would still rather be tracked than pay. I mean ffs, Netflix is about to roll out an ad supported plan. The average person does not value their privacy nearly as much as the outraged HN'er would believe. Bring on the downvotes.

Nextgrid 5y ago
> Don't use the service. This is fine if: 1) The true extent of the tracking was disclosed. Before the GDPR that wasn't the case. 2) In practice, this only works for small services with lots of competition. For services which have a monopoly and/or oligopoly (and all of them are equally bad), this isn't a solution. Maybe the GDPR can be relaxed in a few years/decades after other regulations against monopolies take effect or the monopoly/oligopoly problem self-resolves, but in the meantime I think the current state of the GDPR is valuable.
alkonaut 5y ago
The whole idea of the law (at least as I see it) is to state that companies shouldn’t be allowed to trade in people’s information unless both parties of the transaction know exactly what the transaction is. And that means even people who don’t care. That basically means the business model “give people a service in exchange for personal info they think they don’t mind sharing” isn’t ok. It also, by extension, means that you are telling consenting people that some agreements aren’t ok for them to enter into. Which is also fine. > The average person does not value their privacy nearly as much as the outraged HN'er would believe. I think you have it backwards. Regulation is needed because people don’t care. Not the other way around. Seat belt laws are there because people don’t care about personal safety enough.
- qeternity 5y ago
  > Regulation is needed because people don’t care. This is not how Democracy works. If, as you admit, billions of people don’t really care…who are you to force your will upon them? You know what’s better for them than they do? It boggles my mind how people can think this way.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Wait isn’t this exactly what democracy is, i.e some legislative body writing laws that apply to everyone? One might argue (perhaps especially in the case of the EU) that the legislative body doesn’t have public support some times. But that somehow laws are undemocratic because some fraction of the population doesn’t want them or doesn’t care? What’s the reasoning there? It’s even very common in a democracy to see lawmakers introduce laws that have a majority oppose them, because e.g it’s needed for society to function (tax increase would be the typical example that is rarely popular with 50%). I don’t care about half the laws in the book most likely. But I elect representatives I trust to make things I might not like too. Democracy. Also “billions”? These laws are m ass for half a billion Europeans and similar laws exist e.g in California. What’s going on with the rest of the billions it’s not really the concern of EU or California voters because … Democracy.

Nextgrid 5y ago

> Don't use the service. This is fine if: 1) The true extent of the tracking was disclosed. Before the GDPR that wasn't the case. 2) In practice, this only works for small services with lots of competition. For services which have a monopoly and/or oligopoly (and all of them are equally bad), this isn't a solution. Maybe the GDPR can be relaxed in a few years/decades after other regulations against monopolies take effect or the monopoly/oligopoly problem self-resolves, but in the meantime I think the current state of the GDPR is valuable.

alkonaut 5y ago

The whole idea of the law (at least as I see it) is to state that companies shouldn’t be allowed to trade in people’s information unless both parties of the transaction know exactly what the transaction is. And that means even people who don’t care. That basically means the business model “give people a service in exchange for personal info they think they don’t mind sharing” isn’t ok. It also, by extension, means that you are telling consenting people that some agreements aren’t ok for them to enter into. Which is also fine. > The average person does not value their privacy nearly as much as the outraged HN'er would believe. I think you have it backwards. Regulation is needed because people don’t care. Not the other way around. Seat belt laws are there because people don’t care about personal safety enough.

qeternity 5y ago
> Regulation is needed because people don’t care. This is not how Democracy works. If, as you admit, billions of people don’t really care…who are you to force your will upon them? You know what’s better for them than they do? It boggles my mind how people can think this way.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Wait isn’t this exactly what democracy is, i.e some legislative body writing laws that apply to everyone? One might argue (perhaps especially in the case of the EU) that the legislative body doesn’t have public support some times. But that somehow laws are undemocratic because some fraction of the population doesn’t want them or doesn’t care? What’s the reasoning there? It’s even very common in a democracy to see lawmakers introduce laws that have a majority oppose them, because e.g it’s needed for society to function (tax increase would be the typical example that is rarely popular with 50%). I don’t care about half the laws in the book most likely. But I elect representatives I trust to make things I might not like too. Democracy. Also “billions”? These laws are m ass for half a billion Europeans and similar laws exist e.g in California. What’s going on with the rest of the billions it’s not really the concern of EU or California voters because … Democracy.