4 ms·

I'm happy to be an EU citizen for all the great tech regulations that are actually passing here !

rybosworld 4y ago
On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry. Which is difficult if tech has been monopolised by US companies that break the laws, so they're addressing that for a start, as to level the playing field (both with GDPR and other regulations such as the Digital Markets Act).
  - rybosworld 4y ago
    By breaking laws implemented after the fact?
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      All laws are implemented after the fact.
- LelouBil 4y ago
  I agree with you, investing in ethical tech is an important step. However if you look at what is happening today, with everyone having a google/instagram/etc account, and the power these companies have over the competition (because of unethical tactics) it is not feasible to actually compete with them. Legislation is needed to make *everyone* in the tech industry that operates in europe at the same (ethical) level. This may not be directly applicable to the linked article, but I'm mainly thinking of the DMA and DSA which will go into effect in a couple of months.
  - pnt12 4y ago
    Great point. We also need to legislate against walled gardens to let other technologies flourish. Breaking down companies would also be great. YouTube has been mostly crappy but operated at a loss , only alive due to backing by the Google colossus: how do you compete against that? previously, not sure now
- pornel 4y ago
  Not being bound by ethics gives unethical companies an advantage, so curbing unethical behavior is the necessary step to let ethical companies emerge.
- whazor 4y ago
  In countries where Facebook is banned, there are local alternatives. So maybe regulations are the way to go.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. The only reason the US has its tech industry is: - lax laws for everything: from data protection to labor laws - unlimited investor money that can sustain unprofitable businesses for decades Most of the top HN darling have never been profitable, and have been losing billions of dollars for years. The rest haven't been profitable for most of their existence On top of that it helps to have a huge largely homogenous market
avz 4y ago
This made me think of Elephant in Cairo [1] and Pachydermic Personnel Prediction [2]. Specifically, it reminded me of what the classification says about the job of a politician: > Politicians don't hunt elephants, but they will share the elephants you catch with the people who voted for them. Along these lines, we'd have something like > Europeans don't invent new tech, but they will regulate the tech you invented. As a fellow European, I struggle to feel any pride or happiness about this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_Cairo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_Cairo [2]: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/elephant.htm https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/elephant.htm
- davidguetta 4y ago
  America didn't invent everything..
- LelouBil 4y ago
  The thing is, whether these laws happened because of non European business or because of European business is irrelevant to me. There are companies (outside and inside of Europe) misusing personal data given to them and there were not enough regulations about this. Now there is, so I'm happy. If a random country made similar laws only for their companies I would also be happy, for the users located in this country. It just happens to affect me and the people I know so I'm even more happy.
- malermeister 4y ago
  The invention in case was predatory surveillance capitalism. I'm quite happy our elected officials are putting an end to the abuse.
aeternum 4y ago
[flagged]
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  I view the cookie popup like the warning labels on a cigarette pack. It's not going to stop people who want to smoke, but it's going to raise awareness of what's going on behind the scenes.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Nothing in the regulation requires the dark pattern popups that the tech puts up. Literally nothing.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Because of GDPR, consent to cookies must be freely given, specific, informed, and based on an explicit affirmative action. On a webpage, it's pretty clear that action must be a click. The regulation does require it if you want to use cookies, and it's near impossible to code any useful page without storing state (cookies). What percent of websites use zero cookies?
    - LelouBil 4y ago
      It's consent to unnecesary coookies that is needed. You can have a session cookie without popup, but an analytics cookie or a personalized ads cookie requires consent.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Ah yes. "Companies are willingly flaunting the law, so the law is bad" > Because of GDPR, consent to cookies must be freely given, specific, informed, and based on an explicit affirmative action. Indeed. So if you do ask for consent, there have to be two explicitly labeled buttons: "Agree", and "Disagree". How many of the greedy leeches siphoning user data are providing that? And how many are instead waiting how long they can get away with it before the regulators get to them? > The regulation does require it if you want to use cookies, and it's near impossible to code any useful page without storing state (cookies). Nope. This is a lie that has been sold to you buy the same greedy leeches that have sold you the lie that it is the GDPR that is bad, the GDPR that is requiring these bad cookie popups etc. First thing you could do is open the law (it's not that long and is not that complex) and try to find where cookies are mentioned. Hint: they are mentioned nowhere in the main body of text, and are only mentioned in one of the Recitals. However, you rely on the industry to tell you that the law is bad even if the industry is extremely interested in painting the law in a bad light. So. If the data you get/process/store is strictly required for the functioning of your business (whether it's for storing login info or a shopping cart, or because other laws say so as they do in the case of banks), consent is not required. If you get/process/store that data for any other reason, you must get a specific informed consent from the users. And no, pre-selected checkboxes, hiding "disagree/reject" behind fifteen clicks etc. is not it.

On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry.

Nextgrid 4y ago
> If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry. Which is difficult if tech has been monopolised by US companies that break the laws, so they're addressing that for a start, as to level the playing field (both with GDPR and other regulations such as the Digital Markets Act).
- rybosworld 4y ago
  By breaking laws implemented after the fact?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    All laws are implemented after the fact.
LelouBil 4y ago
I agree with you, investing in ethical tech is an important step. However if you look at what is happening today, with everyone having a google/instagram/etc account, and the power these companies have over the competition (because of unethical tactics) it is not feasible to actually compete with them. Legislation is needed to make *everyone* in the tech industry that operates in europe at the same (ethical) level. This may not be directly applicable to the linked article, but I'm mainly thinking of the DMA and DSA which will go into effect in a couple of months.
- pnt12 4y ago
  Great point. We also need to legislate against walled gardens to let other technologies flourish. Breaking down companies would also be great. YouTube has been mostly crappy but operated at a loss , only alive due to backing by the Google colossus: how do you compete against that? previously, not sure now
pornel 4y ago
Not being bound by ethics gives unethical companies an advantage, so curbing unethical behavior is the necessary step to let ethical companies emerge.
whazor 4y ago
In countries where Facebook is banned, there are local alternatives. So maybe regulations are the way to go.
dmitriid 4y ago
> On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. The only reason the US has its tech industry is: - lax laws for everything: from data protection to labor laws - unlimited investor money that can sustain unprofitable businesses for decades Most of the top HN darling have never been profitable, and have been losing billions of dollars for years. The rest haven't been profitable for most of their existence On top of that it helps to have a huge largely homogenous market

avz 4y ago

This made me think of Elephant in Cairo [1] and Pachydermic Personnel Prediction [2]. Specifically, it reminded me of what the classification says about the job of a politician: > Politicians don't hunt elephants, but they will share the elephants you catch with the people who voted for them. Along these lines, we'd have something like > Europeans don't invent new tech, but they will regulate the tech you invented. As a fellow European, I struggle to feel any pride or happiness about this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_Cairo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_Cairo [2]: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/elephant.htm https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/elephant.htm

davidguetta 4y ago
America didn't invent everything..
LelouBil 4y ago
The thing is, whether these laws happened because of non European business or because of European business is irrelevant to me. There are companies (outside and inside of Europe) misusing personal data given to them and there were not enough regulations about this. Now there is, so I'm happy. If a random country made similar laws only for their companies I would also be happy, for the users located in this country. It just happens to affect me and the people I know so I'm even more happy.
malermeister 4y ago
The invention in case was predatory surveillance capitalism. I'm quite happy our elected officials are putting an end to the abuse.

aeternum 4y ago

[flagged]

deafpolygon 4y ago
I view the cookie popup like the warning labels on a cigarette pack. It's not going to stop people who want to smoke, but it's going to raise awareness of what's going on behind the scenes.
dmitriid 4y ago
Nothing in the regulation requires the dark pattern popups that the tech puts up. Literally nothing.
- aeternum 4y ago
  Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Because of GDPR, consent to cookies must be freely given, specific, informed, and based on an explicit affirmative action. On a webpage, it's pretty clear that action must be a click. The regulation does require it if you want to use cookies, and it's near impossible to code any useful page without storing state (cookies). What percent of websites use zero cookies?
  - LelouBil 4y ago
    It's consent to unnecesary coookies that is needed. You can have a session cookie without popup, but an analytics cookie or a personalized ads cookie requires consent.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Ah yes. "Companies are willingly flaunting the law, so the law is bad" > Because of GDPR, consent to cookies must be freely given, specific, informed, and based on an explicit affirmative action. Indeed. So if you do ask for consent, there have to be two explicitly labeled buttons: "Agree", and "Disagree". How many of the greedy leeches siphoning user data are providing that? And how many are instead waiting how long they can get away with it before the regulators get to them? > The regulation does require it if you want to use cookies, and it's near impossible to code any useful page without storing state (cookies). Nope. This is a lie that has been sold to you buy the same greedy leeches that have sold you the lie that it is the GDPR that is bad, the GDPR that is requiring these bad cookie popups etc. First thing you could do is open the law (it's not that long and is not that complex) and try to find where cookies are mentioned. Hint: they are mentioned nowhere in the main body of text, and are only mentioned in one of the Recitals. However, you rely on the industry to tell you that the law is bad even if the industry is extremely interested in painting the law in a bad light. So. If the data you get/process/store is strictly required for the functioning of your business (whether it's for storing login info or a shopping cart, or because other laws say so as they do in the case of banks), consent is not required. If you get/process/store that data for any other reason, you must get a specific informed consent from the users. And no, pre-selected checkboxes, hiding "disagree/reject" behind fifteen clicks etc. is not it.