3 ms·

While EU regulations like the GDPR aim to limit big tech's power, they can unintentionally solidify it. These rules increase costs and bureaucracy, creating bar

While EU regulations like the GDPR aim to limit big tech's power, they can unintentionally solidify it. These rules increase costs and bureaucracy, creating barriers for startups while major corporations absorb these burdens easily. The GDPR also legalises data trade, as users now routinely consent without understanding implications. This essentially gives companies the right to repackage and sell data, where before GDPR it was a gray area. Also, penalties for violations, although significant, may merely be seen as a cost of doing business for these giants. So, we must scrutinise whether these regulations genuinely promote competition or inadvertently strengthen the monopolies they're designed to control.

nolok 3y ago
As the owner and operator of small (<25 employees each) companies in the EU directly affected by the GDPR, I disagree with you. Implementing it has required work but mostly due to the need to change habits, it didn't add any real burden in day to day life, it promoted a much healthier and safer environnement for our customers, it allowed us to push something we believe in without disadvantaging us compared to our competitors, and it gave us a direct marketing advantage in that customers trust us much more than "web giants" to keep our words about this in the experience I have. YMMV but the GDPR has been a massive gain on every front for me, both as a user, as a citizen and as a small business owner and operator.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
>users now routinely consent This is a weakness of the regulation, not an issue with the concept of regulation. There should be a much clearer ban on applying these dark patterns to trick people into consenting.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  It's arguably a problem with the enforcement not keeping up. Many of these practices are in pretty clear violation of the GDPR. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but time and time again these practices have been deemed illegal, in no small part due to the legal hijinx of Max Schrems.
- varispeed 3y ago
  Consider this alternative perspective: large corporations that profit from user data might have found themselves in a tricky position, facing potential lawsuits and lacking a clear framework to legitimise their data collection practices. Perhaps GDPR came into existence partly as a solution to this issue. One could argue that its design started from a premise to make data collection and trade more manageable for big corporations, but then was reverse-engineered to present it as a policy protecting people's privacy. This way, the EU could maintain its image as a protector of citizens' rights, while simultaneously assuaging public concerns over data security. This could result in individuals being more willing to consent to data collection. A significant contributing factor to this could be the EU's 'Cookie Law', which may have conditioned users to automatically agree to pop-ups without thoroughly understanding what they're consenting to. While this perspective may sound cynical, it's worth considering that regulatory decisions can have complex motivations and implications, often beyond the most apparent intent to do good.
  - MereInterest 3y ago
    > lacking a clear framework to legitimise their data collection practices Why should that be a goal of the legislation at all? The design of the GDPR makes their business model illegal, in the same way that the design of the EPA makes chemical dumping illegal. Providing a path to legitimize their data collection would be contrary to the goal of stopping their data collection.

nolok 3y ago

As the owner and operator of small (<25 employees each) companies in the EU directly affected by the GDPR, I disagree with you. Implementing it has required work but mostly due to the need to change habits, it didn't add any real burden in day to day life, it promoted a much healthier and safer environnement for our customers, it allowed us to push something we believe in without disadvantaging us compared to our competitors, and it gave us a direct marketing advantage in that customers trust us much more than "web giants" to keep our words about this in the experience I have. YMMV but the GDPR has been a massive gain on every front for me, both as a user, as a citizen and as a small business owner and operator.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

>users now routinely consent This is a weakness of the regulation, not an issue with the concept of regulation. There should be a much clearer ban on applying these dark patterns to trick people into consenting.

marginalia_nu 3y ago
It's arguably a problem with the enforcement not keeping up. Many of these practices are in pretty clear violation of the GDPR. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but time and time again these practices have been deemed illegal, in no small part due to the legal hijinx of Max Schrems.
varispeed 3y ago
Consider this alternative perspective: large corporations that profit from user data might have found themselves in a tricky position, facing potential lawsuits and lacking a clear framework to legitimise their data collection practices. Perhaps GDPR came into existence partly as a solution to this issue. One could argue that its design started from a premise to make data collection and trade more manageable for big corporations, but then was reverse-engineered to present it as a policy protecting people's privacy. This way, the EU could maintain its image as a protector of citizens' rights, while simultaneously assuaging public concerns over data security. This could result in individuals being more willing to consent to data collection. A significant contributing factor to this could be the EU's 'Cookie Law', which may have conditioned users to automatically agree to pop-ups without thoroughly understanding what they're consenting to. While this perspective may sound cynical, it's worth considering that regulatory decisions can have complex motivations and implications, often beyond the most apparent intent to do good.
- MereInterest 3y ago
  > lacking a clear framework to legitimise their data collection practices Why should that be a goal of the legislation at all? The design of the GDPR makes their business model illegal, in the same way that the design of the EPA makes chemical dumping illegal. Providing a path to legitimize their data collection would be contrary to the goal of stopping their data collection.