4 ms·

You keep throwing around the "unbelievable" and "unreasonable" fines. Why do you think that these fines are "unbelievable" and "unreasonable"? Because for me t

by esarbe 3y ago

You keep throwing around the "unbelievable" and "unreasonable" fines. Why do you think that these fines are "unbelievable" and "unreasonable"? Because for me they are rather on the low side, given the business practices, the reach and the potential for abuse that these companies have.

personomas 3y ago
1) They stopped it 3 years when their was an inquiry. 2) 2.6% of revenue for a company that isn't even profitable. 3) 2.6% of revenue for a global company, how much of this then is only EU revenue?? Are they supposed to get their legs cut off just for breaking one law of the 5 million that they're suppose to comply with? 4) This was a first offense for this company. 5) They're not doing anything harmful with the data. It's a social media platform. We need to relax. The burden should be on the parents.
- Lacerda69 3y ago
  >Are they supposed to get their legs cut off just for breaking one law Yes, they wont learn otherwise.
  - personomas 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ubercow13 3y ago
      How else would regulation work?
      - personomas 3y ago
        [flagged]
        esarbe 3y ago
        They wouldn't even notice 100'000 Euros and so the fine would be useless as a tool of discouragement. The laws have been specified so that they scale with the size of a company. Tiktok it's a big company. They make a lot of money. They can afford the 345 million. They will notice that. So the fine seems appropriate to me.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      I understand the tool of hyperbole, but this is a very flawed hyperbole. We do have to keep people around if they behave in ways that harm society, but society is not morally bound to keep companies existing despite them misbehaving. They are not living conscious entities. They are organizations created for the purpose of accumulating money. And if they cannot do that without violating the laws, then they should be dissolved. That's not an "authoritarian mindset". That's just the mindset "the law applies to everyone".
      - personomas 3y ago
        Organizations/companies are serve a purpose of serving society through work. They are inherently unselfish entities.
- esarbe 3y ago
  1) GDRP has been in effect since 2018. It doesn't matter that they were in violation of the law "only" two years - they broke the law. 2) Just because they are incompetent doesn't mean they get to break the law. Why should incompetent businesses be absolved from any wrongdoing? 3) If they want to do business in the EU they have to play by the EU's laws. If they cannot abide by the EU's rules, they probably should not try to make business in the EU. 4) That's why they only have to pay 2.6%. 5) There were multiple breaches that exposed user's data. You might think that exposing user's data is not that serious, the EU has decided otherwise. The burden by law is with the company, not the parents.

by esarbe 3y ago

personomas 3y ago

1) They stopped it 3 years when their was an inquiry. 2) 2.6% of revenue for a company that isn't even profitable. 3) 2.6% of revenue for a global company, how much of this then is only EU revenue?? Are they supposed to get their legs cut off just for breaking one law of the 5 million that they're suppose to comply with? 4) This was a first offense for this company. 5) They're not doing anything harmful with the data. It's a social media platform. We need to relax. The burden should be on the parents.

Lacerda69 3y ago
>Are they supposed to get their legs cut off just for breaking one law Yes, they wont learn otherwise.
- personomas 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ubercow13 3y ago
    How else would regulation work?
    - personomas 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - esarbe 3y ago
        They wouldn't even notice 100'000 Euros and so the fine would be useless as a tool of discouragement. The laws have been specified so that they scale with the size of a company. Tiktok it's a big company. They make a lot of money. They can afford the 345 million. They will notice that. So the fine seems appropriate to me.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    I understand the tool of hyperbole, but this is a very flawed hyperbole. We do have to keep people around if they behave in ways that harm society, but society is not morally bound to keep companies existing despite them misbehaving. They are not living conscious entities. They are organizations created for the purpose of accumulating money. And if they cannot do that without violating the laws, then they should be dissolved. That's not an "authoritarian mindset". That's just the mindset "the law applies to everyone".
    - personomas 3y ago
      Organizations/companies are serve a purpose of serving society through work. They are inherently unselfish entities.
esarbe 3y ago
1) GDRP has been in effect since 2018. It doesn't matter that they were in violation of the law "only" two years - they broke the law. 2) Just because they are incompetent doesn't mean they get to break the law. Why should incompetent businesses be absolved from any wrongdoing? 3) If they want to do business in the EU they have to play by the EU's laws. If they cannot abide by the EU's rules, they probably should not try to make business in the EU. 4) That's why they only have to pay 2.6%. 5) There were multiple breaches that exposed user's data. You might think that exposing user's data is not that serious, the EU has decided otherwise. The burden by law is with the company, not the parents.