3 ms·

The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. The GDPR actually makes 90% of them illegal. Enforcement appears to be slowly ramping up. > Th

The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. The GDPR actually makes 90% of them illegal. Enforcement appears to be slowly ramping up. > The value you get from Facebook is the ads are relevant If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of. In reality though the value people get from Facebook is being able to keep in touch with their friends or content that interests them. The ads are just pollution. I think we used to call this "spam" in the past. The ruling now at least allows people to deny spammers usage of their personal data for the purposes of targeting said spam.

astrange 4y ago
> The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. Unintended results are part of writing the laws. So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. When the DMA starts enforcement and makes it impossible to block messaging spam because all messengers have to trust each other, that’ll be part of it too. > If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of. No, not all markets clear. If you get a smaller market because not everyone opts in there’s just going to be less stuff in it. (And I actually think Instagram’s ads are more interesting than, say, my family members who’ve decided to become influencers.)
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Unintended results are part of writing the laws. It's hard to forsee companies wanting to annoy users on purpose. > So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. What's the problem here? Wireless charging is already using a single standard.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Out here Starbucks still has a bunch of tables with some kind of wireless charging ring that isn’t Qi. But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Out here Starbucks still has a bunch of tables with some kind of wireless charging ring that isn’t Qi. Qi won, though. Nobody is deploying new non-qi powermat, and supposedly there are firmware updates to make those compatible. > But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving. Buying and keeping a phone with no charging port is a very intentional act and I'm not overly worried about that. And it's still much better to have two ways to charge, one wired and one wireless, than to have three.
throw10920 4y ago
> The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. That is part of the regulation. If you are unwilling to consistently and correctly enforce the regulations that you're proposing, that results in selective enforcement and is bad regulation.

astrange 4y ago

> The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. Unintended results are part of writing the laws. So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. When the DMA starts enforcement and makes it impossible to block messaging spam because all messengers have to trust each other, that’ll be part of it too. > If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of. No, not all markets clear. If you get a smaller market because not everyone opts in there’s just going to be less stuff in it. (And I actually think Instagram’s ads are more interesting than, say, my family members who’ve decided to become influencers.)

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Unintended results are part of writing the laws. It's hard to forsee companies wanting to annoy users on purpose. > So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. What's the problem here? Wireless charging is already using a single standard.
- astrange 4y ago
  Out here Starbucks still has a bunch of tables with some kind of wireless charging ring that isn’t Qi. But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Out here Starbucks still has a bunch of tables with some kind of wireless charging ring that isn’t Qi. Qi won, though. Nobody is deploying new non-qi powermat, and supposedly there are firmware updates to make those compatible. > But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving. Buying and keeping a phone with no charging port is a very intentional act and I'm not overly worried about that. And it's still much better to have two ways to charge, one wired and one wireless, than to have three.

throw10920 4y ago

> The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. That is part of the regulation. If you are unwilling to consistently and correctly enforce the regulations that you're proposing, that results in selective enforcement and is bad regulation.