4 ms·
> those banners arose from malicious compliance The consequences of malicious compliance must be considered for every law passed. That's fundamental to the pro
by shadowgovt 4y ago
> those banners arose from malicious compliance
The consequences of malicious compliance must be considered for every law passed. That's fundamental to the process of law, because humans react to incentives and are often selfish (or at least, self-focused). There was very little carrot attached to the law and plenty of stick, so people pushing right up to the edge of what the law allows was completely anticipated.
Can't blame people with goals opposed to the law for legally bending the law to reach those goals.
I like thinking about what ought to be, but I sure get burned too often by people passing laws in that direction who haven't paid sufficient thought to what is.
- mindslight 4y agoI agree that the cookie law was a terrible law, written by tech-ignorant politicians who reached for a naive solution - one that already existed as a configuration option in web browsers. Malicious compliance within the letter of the law should be anticipated, yes. But malicious noncompliance is still illegal, like these GDPR-inspired faux-consent popups. The framing of consent in the GDPR is precisely because of how the cookie law played out. I find it curious that your nick is "shadowgovt", yet you're arguing against attempting to regulate a shadow government. Are you like a shadow government enthusiast or something?
- shadowgovt 4y agoCheck my profile, it's a reference to a song. The crux of the song is shadow governments do not exist. It's just people doing their best with the incentives before them.
- mindslight 4y agoAh, the irony of music lyrics explains the inversion. (TMBG has always been in sort of a blind spot for me.) FWIW you can hand wave away the existence of overt governments with the same rationale. Identifying and naming emergent structures is how we make sense of the chaos.