5 ms·

The acceleration of the divergence of the EU from the United States with respect to cutting edge software will be a site to behold. One is neutering and the oth

The acceleration of the divergence of the EU from the United States with respect to cutting edge software will be a site to behold. One is neutering and the other is cultivating.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
it's not neutering, it's pest control
- tenpies 3y ago
  > pest control I believe the Chinese Communists tried a similar thing[1]. I know you're just being poetic, but let's hope history doesn't repeat. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
- neximo64 3y ago
  I'm assuming you're typing this with the comfort of some kind of blink or webkit based web browser, made by said pests
  - aerhardt 3y ago
    I’m assuming you’ve benefitted to some extent from GDPR making it harder for companies to laugh their way to the bank with your data, even if you don’t live in the EU. And to be clear, I pretty much agree with your sentiment; the EU is overzealous and the US is light-years ahead in digital tech - and not only or mainly due to regulation. But let’s not pretend the US culture of “just do it and inshallah” is all rainbows and sunshine. With AI in particular there are existential or quasi-existential risks.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      > With AI in particular there are quasi-existential risks lol, there really are not. It's hilarious to see the upper echelons of many government's unironically believing this. they should definitely keep an eye on the development, but as of yet it is not even close to an existential risk.
      - aerhardt 3y ago
        Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell and other AI leaders are warning us that there are existential risks, if only due to the inevitable creation of autonomous murder machines by the military (Hinton and Russell are both worried about things beyond that, by the way). I’ll take their word for it and not only on the basis of their authority - they have very well put arguments. OpenAI is also playing it safe to some extent, maybe to please the general public and serve the org’s own interests, or maybe they are genuinely concerned about real safety threats, who knows. At any rate their actions don’t align with your discourse.
        localplume 3y ago
        [dead]
        endisneigh 3y ago
        > At any rate their actions don’t align with your discourse. Sure they do. You can still use GPT-4 now. If GPT-4 was actually an existantial risk they would have shut it down.
  - krono 3y ago
    What we call pests often fulfil such important roles in nature that we'd be hopelessly effed without them. They only become a problem when they decide to come and live in our homes, eat from our food, and lay eggs in our beds. So since we're stuck with them, the best thing we can do is to try and prevent this problematic behaviour from taking place. If that somehow fails things are going to get nasty for a while.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Never accused browser developers of being pests. But I do have some candidates, say gig-economy delivery apps that bypass minimum wage, and put drivers under auch time pressure that they are always panicking, besides peeing in bottles one of them hit my friend on a motorbike and nearly put him in the hospital. Many the Deliveroo folks in London are driving illegal ebikes with 1000W motors at 45 km speed. I Most of then are self-done conversion of $150 bicycle that is not even roadworthy, has old squeky rim brakes, no mirrors or horn or anything. If I know this, deliveroo knows this, and I am confident that they are knowingly taking advatage of this situation. If they were fully employed, deloliveroo would have to provide them with vehicles, something roadworthy. For example a Riese & Muller ebike is actually a roadworthy light moped with mirrors, ABS, etc. Why is my safetu sacraficed to save deliveroo like 2 grand on vehile costs? Are lives so cheap?
  - aqme28 3y ago
    What do blink or webkit have to do with their comment? Regulations like this are designed to weed out scammers and charlatans and make the market better for everyone, hence "pest control." Think Theranos and the FDA.
  - kolinko 3y ago
    We would all be using Internet Explorer now, if not for the US Government. So using browsers as an argument against regulations is a bad analogy.
    - neximo64 3y ago
      Still made by a pest. The original comment was about how Europe isn't able to nurture technology.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Anyone heard of ARM and ASML? Skype, Spotify? Just because we don't do software giants does not mean we can't do technology. Maybe US economy would be healthier if you did not allow like 3 companies to buy up all the competition.
        neximo64 3y ago
        Of those 1 is software as you mention, 1 is not an EU company, and 1 was founded 40 years ago, before tech regulation was a thing. If you did a like for like equivalent for American technology it can't even compare. You could find small countries in Asia that have done more. What the author of the original comment is saying is thats not a surprise. Surely you can't be serious with the EU almost lecturing the world on how AI should work, using Spotify? or even counting ASML and ARM? On what basis?
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Would you accept your own argument in relatuon to China - since they dominate production of hardware, we should adopt their top-dpwn approach to industrial policy and exploitative labour laws?
        neximo64 3y ago
        Well no, but I would argue that we don't have to since we have (collectively as the west) our own software and hardware. When we look at the aspect sold into western markets, it is not being designed and made in China it is being contracted to be built there. I would also argue that the labour exploitation is being done by American/European companies. The point i'm trying to make with the EU is that it doesn't but wants to extraterritorially rule other countries, with no industry knowledge or stakeholders, other than a market to sell to. Where companies exist in question, are mostly American is because their government doesn't hamper development and lets companies thrive in a reasonable way that is balanced and fair. The EU version is quite overbudensome where the company wont easily exist in the first place and that has no impact into the labour practices to outsourced companies anyway. There are plenty of European companies that manufacture in China and exploit labour - which is a separate argument to the ability for companies to be nurtured to exist.
oblio 3y ago
The jury's still out on whether software is an unalloyed good.
- brookst 3y ago
  Straw man. Nobody would say that. Is the jury still out on whether software does more good than harm?
  - chii 3y ago
    it depends on what people attribute as harm. I think the only harm an AI can do is the kind that come from errors (human or otherwise). Such as the boeing 737 Max, where people misuse software. The type of 'harm' that some people attribute to AI such as loss of economic utility, to me, is not harm. And legislating that away is dangerous.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Some categories, for sure. We have no idea about the impact of AI. It's almost like the EU is regulating stuff that's really scary.
    - brookst 3y ago
      Absolutely. The EU's regulatory posture is to prohibit things that could cause harm in the future. It's very consumer-first, risk-avoidant, and a fair way to do things. For someone who's more willing to accept risk and who prefers regulating bad outcomes rather than just scary things that could possibly have bad outcomes but which nobody can predict, it looks over-protective. But I fully support the EU's right to take a wait-and-see approach and gradually accept AI if it goes well for the rest of the world. Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine.
      - oblio 3y ago
        > Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine. "Centuries" is mega hyperbole when you look at physics, chemistry, etc, etc up until at least 1930.
stefan_ 3y ago
Yes, that's exactly how it turned out with China who have been doing this much longer..
lm28469 3y ago
> One is neutering and the other is cultivating Now the question is: what are they neutering/cultivating. It might very well end in a "why did we start putting lead in gas again?" / "we can spray kids with DDT clouds right?" x100 moment
- bionhoward 3y ago
  You could make the converse statement about thalidomide, which USA avoided while others suffered severe problems. Regulation isn’t a silver bullet, and it’s particularly challenging to regulate AI because bits flow faster than atoms
  - lillecarl 3y ago
    There's also the opioid epidemic and amphetamine epidemic. They're pretty hard to justify in my opinion. Not that other countries don't have issues, but it's less common in democracies that that these things are pushed onto people by the govt through lobbying.
    - dantheman 3y ago
      The opioid and amphetamine problems are due to drug relations in the US. It would have been better to not prohibit drugs. We are finally starting to see the rollback for marijuana. The amount of damage to civil liberties and lives lost to the drug war should be exhibit A in any argument about regulation.
    - danlugo92 3y ago
      I live in a city with defacto legal drugs (including up to cocaine, crack and meth, but admittedly no opoids except hydrocodone) and there's no societal collapse nor any epidemic to be seen. The problem is not drugs.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  DDT wasn’t banned for harming humans. Actually banning it was probably bad for humans overall because of the rise in malaria (but we opted to make that trade off for environmental reasons). You should probably pick a better example.
ChuckNorris89 3y ago
Because many of the US's so called cutting edge SW has mostly been privacy invasive data harvesting empires designed to serve ads, like Google and Meta, or regulation dodging apps like Uber and AirBnB, or monopolies engaging in anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, like Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. With that logic TikTok is also some fancy innovation. None of the FAANGMAULs have their hands clean. Same with scummy companies like Cambridge-Analytica. Honest SW innovations that don't aid in monetizing your eye-ball time to make you buys shit, or manipulating your emotions into making you feel insecure, or swaying your vote, don't make nearly as much money as what big-tech does. Same as stopping food manufacturers from putting arsenic and lead in our food, or the auto industry from making only fuel inefficient air poisoning shitboxes, or big-tobacco who killed more people than the Nazis, the tech industry also needs regulations to protect the consumers, and honestly, it's long overdue and yet people on HN don't want this because they feel like this will stop them from becoming the next Zuckerberg.
- criley2 3y ago
  You can extrapolate this opinion all the way to "the only moral human existence is de-industrialization and return to hunter/gatherer lifestyle, and reducing humanity from billions to a million or less". You drew the line at software and automobiles, but it's not hard (and not a slippery slope) to authentically draw the line much further. All of civilization is bad for the planet and for us as well. Bread was a mistake.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Surveillance capitalism isn't necessary for society to function. I can live just fine without google, fb and tiktok serving me ads. I can store my files in the cloud just fine without microsoft and google scanning them. Navigation apps work just fine without uploading location history to google. A lot of those so-called "innovations" aren't necessary.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      [flagged]
simion314 3y ago
AFAIK in USA the AI stuff is still in limbo, Microsoft and Open AI will have to defend themselves in court, the result could be worse then what EU is preparing depending on your alignment. I prefer this shit is clarified so everyone knows what is legal and not, and not have only the big corporations do the illegal stuff and apologize later.
- hhh 3y ago
  It’s not illegal though. That’s the point, is it not?
  - simion314 3y ago
    It is undecided/unclear what is legal or not, I am not an american so I am not the one that should explain this. But Microsoft trained their coding AI with GPL software but not with proprietary software impaling that they can risc screwing Open Source but not the paying GitHub customers or not sure why they did not used their own internal proprietary code. Open AI trained with the entire inernet, books, ignored any license copyright cponcerns. Stability.ai also trained with lot of stuff. Adobe trained only with stuff they have licenses. So as we can see until an USA judge decides how to interpret the existing laws then stuff are not sure, some companies take the risks other take less risks, others no risk. But if USA some other judge in a superior court my decide something else, so IMO USA also needs to take a decision and not let FUD (deserved or not) about AI to spread. I seen many do not know that the issue ChatGPT had in Italy was about a data leak. There are laws on what you do when this happens, probably are similar laws in USA , maybe in USA is harder to start a investigation or maybe there were some lobbying involved.
can16358p 3y ago
Same for GDPR. Not a surprise all big tech is in US. If EU wants to play this card, US will get even stronger at keeping tech talent. (I reside neither in the US or EU)
- smarx007 3y ago
  I didn't see any effect from GDPR on tech talent migration. Any source on this?!
  - icepat 3y ago
    This, to me, sounds like personal opinion. Many developers in the EEA, while agreeing that it causes extra work, like the spirit of GDPR. The attitude (a generalisation) towards the American way of working with private data, is generally that it's unethical. It's not hard to find developers who are happy to, and want to, work within the framework.
  - robswc 3y ago
    He probably means its just another factor in why there's very few startups/innovative companies in Europe. I did consulting and for a fair amount of projects where we had to block all European traffic while GDPR compliance was sorted out. There was almost never anything we had to actually do/change but the threat was looming and it was easier to just not take the risk.
    - smarx007 3y ago
      That's a totally legit way of "complying" with GDPR. An unacceptable way to do this is to present a consent screen that restricts access if consent is denied but allows access otherwise (looking at you, Washington Post, but at least they provide an option to pay for a privacy-respecting experience). Cf §43.2 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
- hef19898 3y ago
  Reducing everything, technology, economy and society, to software tech is such a pseudo-SV bubble thing, it is getting boring by now.
aqme28 3y ago
What about these regulations is neutering? They sound pretty reasonable I thought.
suction 3y ago
As a EU citizen, I can't even begin to explain to you how willing I am to trade in possibly not having cutting edge software for the higher living standards and cultural superiority of the EU.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
One actively encourages corporations to use the population as test subjects for any psychopathic idea that gets enough money backing it The other is Europe
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  How many of those “psychopathic ideas” do Europeans end up benefiting from once they mature?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Sorry just to be clear, are you attempting to make the Tuskegee vaccine argument?

The acceleration of the divergence of the EU from the United States with respect to cutting edge software will be a site to behold. One is neutering and the other is cultivating.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

it's not neutering, it's pest control

tenpies 3y ago
> pest control I believe the Chinese Communists tried a similar thing[1]. I know you're just being poetic, but let's hope history doesn't repeat. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
neximo64 3y ago
I'm assuming you're typing this with the comfort of some kind of blink or webkit based web browser, made by said pests
- aerhardt 3y ago
  I’m assuming you’ve benefitted to some extent from GDPR making it harder for companies to laugh their way to the bank with your data, even if you don’t live in the EU. And to be clear, I pretty much agree with your sentiment; the EU is overzealous and the US is light-years ahead in digital tech - and not only or mainly due to regulation. But let’s not pretend the US culture of “just do it and inshallah” is all rainbows and sunshine. With AI in particular there are existential or quasi-existential risks.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    > With AI in particular there are quasi-existential risks lol, there really are not. It's hilarious to see the upper echelons of many government's unironically believing this. they should definitely keep an eye on the development, but as of yet it is not even close to an existential risk.
    - aerhardt 3y ago
      Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell and other AI leaders are warning us that there are existential risks, if only due to the inevitable creation of autonomous murder machines by the military (Hinton and Russell are both worried about things beyond that, by the way). I’ll take their word for it and not only on the basis of their authority - they have very well put arguments. OpenAI is also playing it safe to some extent, maybe to please the general public and serve the org’s own interests, or maybe they are genuinely concerned about real safety threats, who knows. At any rate their actions don’t align with your discourse.
      - localplume 3y ago
        [dead]
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        > At any rate their actions don’t align with your discourse. Sure they do. You can still use GPT-4 now. If GPT-4 was actually an existantial risk they would have shut it down.
- krono 3y ago
  What we call pests often fulfil such important roles in nature that we'd be hopelessly effed without them. They only become a problem when they decide to come and live in our homes, eat from our food, and lay eggs in our beds. So since we're stuck with them, the best thing we can do is to try and prevent this problematic behaviour from taking place. If that somehow fails things are going to get nasty for a while.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Never accused browser developers of being pests. But I do have some candidates, say gig-economy delivery apps that bypass minimum wage, and put drivers under auch time pressure that they are always panicking, besides peeing in bottles one of them hit my friend on a motorbike and nearly put him in the hospital. Many the Deliveroo folks in London are driving illegal ebikes with 1000W motors at 45 km speed. I Most of then are self-done conversion of $150 bicycle that is not even roadworthy, has old squeky rim brakes, no mirrors or horn or anything. If I know this, deliveroo knows this, and I am confident that they are knowingly taking advatage of this situation. If they were fully employed, deloliveroo would have to provide them with vehicles, something roadworthy. For example a Riese & Muller ebike is actually a roadworthy light moped with mirrors, ABS, etc. Why is my safetu sacraficed to save deliveroo like 2 grand on vehile costs? Are lives so cheap?
- aqme28 3y ago
  What do blink or webkit have to do with their comment? Regulations like this are designed to weed out scammers and charlatans and make the market better for everyone, hence "pest control." Think Theranos and the FDA.
- kolinko 3y ago
  We would all be using Internet Explorer now, if not for the US Government. So using browsers as an argument against regulations is a bad analogy.
  - neximo64 3y ago
    Still made by a pest. The original comment was about how Europe isn't able to nurture technology.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      Anyone heard of ARM and ASML? Skype, Spotify? Just because we don't do software giants does not mean we can't do technology. Maybe US economy would be healthier if you did not allow like 3 companies to buy up all the competition.
      - neximo64 3y ago
        Of those 1 is software as you mention, 1 is not an EU company, and 1 was founded 40 years ago, before tech regulation was a thing. If you did a like for like equivalent for American technology it can't even compare. You could find small countries in Asia that have done more. What the author of the original comment is saying is thats not a surprise. Surely you can't be serious with the EU almost lecturing the world on how AI should work, using Spotify? or even counting ASML and ARM? On what basis?
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        Would you accept your own argument in relatuon to China - since they dominate production of hardware, we should adopt their top-dpwn approach to industrial policy and exploitative labour laws?
        neximo64 3y ago
        Well no, but I would argue that we don't have to since we have (collectively as the west) our own software and hardware. When we look at the aspect sold into western markets, it is not being designed and made in China it is being contracted to be built there. I would also argue that the labour exploitation is being done by American/European companies. The point i'm trying to make with the EU is that it doesn't but wants to extraterritorially rule other countries, with no industry knowledge or stakeholders, other than a market to sell to. Where companies exist in question, are mostly American is because their government doesn't hamper development and lets companies thrive in a reasonable way that is balanced and fair. The EU version is quite overbudensome where the company wont easily exist in the first place and that has no impact into the labour practices to outsourced companies anyway. There are plenty of European companies that manufacture in China and exploit labour - which is a separate argument to the ability for companies to be nurtured to exist.

oblio 3y ago

The jury's still out on whether software is an unalloyed good.

brookst 3y ago
Straw man. Nobody would say that. Is the jury still out on whether software does more good than harm?
- chii 3y ago
  it depends on what people attribute as harm. I think the only harm an AI can do is the kind that come from errors (human or otherwise). Such as the boeing 737 Max, where people misuse software. The type of 'harm' that some people attribute to AI such as loss of economic utility, to me, is not harm. And legislating that away is dangerous.
- oblio 3y ago
  Some categories, for sure. We have no idea about the impact of AI. It's almost like the EU is regulating stuff that's really scary.
  - brookst 3y ago
    Absolutely. The EU's regulatory posture is to prohibit things that could cause harm in the future. It's very consumer-first, risk-avoidant, and a fair way to do things. For someone who's more willing to accept risk and who prefers regulating bad outcomes rather than just scary things that could possibly have bad outcomes but which nobody can predict, it looks over-protective. But I fully support the EU's right to take a wait-and-see approach and gradually accept AI if it goes well for the rest of the world. Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine.
    - oblio 3y ago
      > Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine. "Centuries" is mega hyperbole when you look at physics, chemistry, etc, etc up until at least 1930.

stefan_ 3y ago

Yes, that's exactly how it turned out with China who have been doing this much longer..

lm28469 3y ago

> One is neutering and the other is cultivating Now the question is: what are they neutering/cultivating. It might very well end in a "why did we start putting lead in gas again?" / "we can spray kids with DDT clouds right?" x100 moment

bionhoward 3y ago
You could make the converse statement about thalidomide, which USA avoided while others suffered severe problems. Regulation isn’t a silver bullet, and it’s particularly challenging to regulate AI because bits flow faster than atoms
- lillecarl 3y ago
  There's also the opioid epidemic and amphetamine epidemic. They're pretty hard to justify in my opinion. Not that other countries don't have issues, but it's less common in democracies that that these things are pushed onto people by the govt through lobbying.
  - dantheman 3y ago
    The opioid and amphetamine problems are due to drug relations in the US. It would have been better to not prohibit drugs. We are finally starting to see the rollback for marijuana. The amount of damage to civil liberties and lives lost to the drug war should be exhibit A in any argument about regulation.
  - danlugo92 3y ago
    I live in a city with defacto legal drugs (including up to cocaine, crack and meth, but admittedly no opoids except hydrocodone) and there's no societal collapse nor any epidemic to be seen. The problem is not drugs.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
DDT wasn’t banned for harming humans. Actually banning it was probably bad for humans overall because of the rise in malaria (but we opted to make that trade off for environmental reasons). You should probably pick a better example.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago

Because many of the US's so called cutting edge SW has mostly been privacy invasive data harvesting empires designed to serve ads, like Google and Meta, or regulation dodging apps like Uber and AirBnB, or monopolies engaging in anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, like Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. With that logic TikTok is also some fancy innovation. None of the FAANGMAULs have their hands clean. Same with scummy companies like Cambridge-Analytica. Honest SW innovations that don't aid in monetizing your eye-ball time to make you buys shit, or manipulating your emotions into making you feel insecure, or swaying your vote, don't make nearly as much money as what big-tech does. Same as stopping food manufacturers from putting arsenic and lead in our food, or the auto industry from making only fuel inefficient air poisoning shitboxes, or big-tobacco who killed more people than the Nazis, the tech industry also needs regulations to protect the consumers, and honestly, it's long overdue and yet people on HN don't want this because they feel like this will stop them from becoming the next Zuckerberg.

criley2 3y ago
You can extrapolate this opinion all the way to "the only moral human existence is de-industrialization and return to hunter/gatherer lifestyle, and reducing humanity from billions to a million or less". You drew the line at software and automobiles, but it's not hard (and not a slippery slope) to authentically draw the line much further. All of civilization is bad for the planet and for us as well. Bread was a mistake.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Surveillance capitalism isn't necessary for society to function. I can live just fine without google, fb and tiktok serving me ads. I can store my files in the cloud just fine without microsoft and google scanning them. Navigation apps work just fine without uploading location history to google. A lot of those so-called "innovations" aren't necessary.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    [flagged]

simion314 3y ago

AFAIK in USA the AI stuff is still in limbo, Microsoft and Open AI will have to defend themselves in court, the result could be worse then what EU is preparing depending on your alignment. I prefer this shit is clarified so everyone knows what is legal and not, and not have only the big corporations do the illegal stuff and apologize later.

hhh 3y ago
It’s not illegal though. That’s the point, is it not?
- simion314 3y ago
  It is undecided/unclear what is legal or not, I am not an american so I am not the one that should explain this. But Microsoft trained their coding AI with GPL software but not with proprietary software impaling that they can risc screwing Open Source but not the paying GitHub customers or not sure why they did not used their own internal proprietary code. Open AI trained with the entire inernet, books, ignored any license copyright cponcerns. Stability.ai also trained with lot of stuff. Adobe trained only with stuff they have licenses. So as we can see until an USA judge decides how to interpret the existing laws then stuff are not sure, some companies take the risks other take less risks, others no risk. But if USA some other judge in a superior court my decide something else, so IMO USA also needs to take a decision and not let FUD (deserved or not) about AI to spread. I seen many do not know that the issue ChatGPT had in Italy was about a data leak. There are laws on what you do when this happens, probably are similar laws in USA , maybe in USA is harder to start a investigation or maybe there were some lobbying involved.

can16358p 3y ago

Same for GDPR. Not a surprise all big tech is in US. If EU wants to play this card, US will get even stronger at keeping tech talent. (I reside neither in the US or EU)

smarx007 3y ago
I didn't see any effect from GDPR on tech talent migration. Any source on this?!
- icepat 3y ago
  This, to me, sounds like personal opinion. Many developers in the EEA, while agreeing that it causes extra work, like the spirit of GDPR. The attitude (a generalisation) towards the American way of working with private data, is generally that it's unethical. It's not hard to find developers who are happy to, and want to, work within the framework.
- robswc 3y ago
  He probably means its just another factor in why there's very few startups/innovative companies in Europe. I did consulting and for a fair amount of projects where we had to block all European traffic while GDPR compliance was sorted out. There was almost never anything we had to actually do/change but the threat was looming and it was easier to just not take the risk.
  - smarx007 3y ago
    That's a totally legit way of "complying" with GDPR. An unacceptable way to do this is to present a consent screen that restricts access if consent is denied but allows access otherwise (looking at you, Washington Post, but at least they provide an option to pay for a privacy-respecting experience). Cf §43.2 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
hef19898 3y ago
Reducing everything, technology, economy and society, to software tech is such a pseudo-SV bubble thing, it is getting boring by now.

aqme28 3y ago

What about these regulations is neutering? They sound pretty reasonable I thought.

suction 3y ago

As a EU citizen, I can't even begin to explain to you how willing I am to trade in possibly not having cutting edge software for the higher living standards and cultural superiority of the EU.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

One actively encourages corporations to use the population as test subjects for any psychopathic idea that gets enough money backing it The other is Europe

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
How many of those “psychopathic ideas” do Europeans end up benefiting from once they mature?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Sorry just to be clear, are you attempting to make the Tuskegee vaccine argument?