4 ms·

> 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 depe

> 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.

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.