4 ms·

those who believe the above are mutually exclusive, and those who develop social infrastructure

tagyro 3y ago
Do I understand correctly that you consider facebook "social infrastructure"? I really hope the fog will lift one day and you'll see the actual impact of facebook (and others), here's one example https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-one https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-pa...
- xvector 3y ago
  Just because you don't like it does not make it "social infrastructure." The world runs on WhatsApp and billions use Facebook to keep in touch with their family and friends. Instagram is also a huge part of the social component of the internet. The bigger problem here is that the EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. A horde of startups would take up the banner, and as soon as they ran out of VC money, they too would need to switch to paid-only business models in order to adhere to GDPR. The EU does not understand how to run a successful tech industry. Edit: Non-targeted ads do not lead to break even. This law will simply lock most poor people out of the internet.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. You can still serve ads in the EU. Literally nothing is stopping you from doing that. > If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. > and as soon as they ran out of VC money, they too would need to switch to paid-only business models i Oh wow. "Companies should actually be profitable and not run on unlimited VC money" is such a radical concept. > The EU does not understand how to run a successful tech industry. Where "successful tech industry" is "hope there's unlimited VC money so that we can keep running our 'free' business while harvesting all available data on everyone because it's our God-given right"?
    - xvector 3y ago
      > You can still serve ads in the EU. Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Your company will not be able to provide services to users if it had to depend on just normal ads. > This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. I don't really care about what the EU thinks is right. The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service. It's sensible to fight these absurd rulings in court. You can consent to drugs or alcohol but can't consent to targeted ads. It's insane. > Oh wow. "Companies should actually be profitable and not run on unlimited VC money" is such a radical concept. That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options. > Where "successful tech industry" is "hope there's unlimited VC money so that we can keep running our 'free' business while harvesting all available data on everyone because it's our God-given right"? How much VC money does Google use again? This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Proof? > The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service. Demagoguery > That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options. False dichotomy based on feelings > How much VC money does Google use again? These are literally your words: "A horde of startups would take up the banner, and as soon as they ran out of VC money". Also, Google was extremely immensely profitable in the era before large-scale data harvesting. > This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on. Demagoguery. "We can't exist without large-scale invasive and pervasive tracking" is not a given. It's a narrative pushed by the industry with literally zero proof. If your business for some reason cannot exist without that, good riddance.
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - xvector 3y ago
      How many "successful tech companies" have we seen out of the US in the past 20 years? Now out of the EU? The entire modern world relies on US tech and the EU has no muscle or understanding for what it takes to run these companies. They are trying to regulate something they fundamentally do not understand.
      - lnxg33k1 3y ago
        It baffles me that the US has been the nest of some of the greatest things for human beings, and now has completely forgotten itself, it baffles me that you had a guy called Kennedy coming up with this perfection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 And now you remember nothing of what he said, it is unbelievable that you're here only measuring the success of a company regardless of the effects it has on the people, you measure the success of the company by money, ok. I consider US tech company as the worst, as the most exploiting, depressing, cheating, dangerous, who serve no purpose other than the one of their shareholders. Do you own the definition of success?
- replygirl 3y ago
  yes and no--i do believe facebook is social infrastructure, but i was not referring to facebook i already agree with you but if you ever come across me again on here please don't try to evangelize at me

Do I understand correctly that you consider facebook "social infrastructure"? I really hope the fog will lift one day and you'll see the actual impact of facebook (and others), here's one example https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-one https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-pa...

xvector 3y ago
Just because you don't like it does not make it "social infrastructure." The world runs on WhatsApp and billions use Facebook to keep in touch with their family and friends. Instagram is also a huge part of the social component of the internet. The bigger problem here is that the EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. A horde of startups would take up the banner, and as soon as they ran out of VC money, they too would need to switch to paid-only business models in order to adhere to GDPR. The EU does not understand how to run a successful tech industry. Edit: Non-targeted ads do not lead to break even. This law will simply lock most poor people out of the internet.
- troupo 3y ago
  > EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. You can still serve ads in the EU. Literally nothing is stopping you from doing that. > If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. > and as soon as they ran out of VC money, they too would need to switch to paid-only business models i Oh wow. "Companies should actually be profitable and not run on unlimited VC money" is such a radical concept. > The EU does not understand how to run a successful tech industry. Where "successful tech industry" is "hope there's unlimited VC money so that we can keep running our 'free' business while harvesting all available data on everyone because it's our God-given right"?
  - xvector 3y ago
    > You can still serve ads in the EU. Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Your company will not be able to provide services to users if it had to depend on just normal ads. > This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. I don't really care about what the EU thinks is right. The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service. It's sensible to fight these absurd rulings in court. You can consent to drugs or alcohol but can't consent to targeted ads. It's insane. > Oh wow. "Companies should actually be profitable and not run on unlimited VC money" is such a radical concept. That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options. > Where "successful tech industry" is "hope there's unlimited VC money so that we can keep running our 'free' business while harvesting all available data on everyone because it's our God-given right"? How much VC money does Google use again? This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Proof? > The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service. Demagoguery > That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options. False dichotomy based on feelings > How much VC money does Google use again? These are literally your words: "A horde of startups would take up the banner, and as soon as they ran out of VC money". Also, Google was extremely immensely profitable in the era before large-scale data harvesting. > This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on. Demagoguery. "We can't exist without large-scale invasive and pervasive tracking" is not a given. It's a narrative pushed by the industry with literally zero proof. If your business for some reason cannot exist without that, good riddance.
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - xvector 3y ago
    How many "successful tech companies" have we seen out of the US in the past 20 years? Now out of the EU? The entire modern world relies on US tech and the EU has no muscle or understanding for what it takes to run these companies. They are trying to regulate something they fundamentally do not understand.
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      It baffles me that the US has been the nest of some of the greatest things for human beings, and now has completely forgotten itself, it baffles me that you had a guy called Kennedy coming up with this perfection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 And now you remember nothing of what he said, it is unbelievable that you're here only measuring the success of a company regardless of the effects it has on the people, you measure the success of the company by money, ok. I consider US tech company as the worst, as the most exploiting, depressing, cheating, dangerous, who serve no purpose other than the one of their shareholders. Do you own the definition of success?
replygirl 3y ago
yes and no--i do believe facebook is social infrastructure, but i was not referring to facebook i already agree with you but if you ever come across me again on here please don't try to evangelize at me