8 ms·

In the article, it says that Spotify filed the complained in 2019 and these big cases can take a long time. There's no big consipiracy theory, I'm sorry! > BTW

by shafyy 3y ago

In the article, it says that Spotify filed the complained in 2019 and these big cases can take a long time. There's no big consipiracy theory, I'm sorry! > BTW, the EU has been quasi irrelevant in realpolitik terms. What?

wslh 3y ago
This is not a conspiracy theory. Big cases shouldn't take a long time with the existing technology. It is on the political side to know how to execute laws faster. People around the world are silently accepting slow law systems instead of speeding them up. We are in 2024. BTW, I have experience working with lawyers and the legal system in significant cases. You will cry or laugh if you witness the processes and tools used.
- microtonal 3y ago
  I am not sure where you are going with this. Yes, we would all like this to go faster. Bureaucracy is slow. But at least the EU has strong consumer protection, privacy, and anti-competitive laws and we all benefit from it (at least EU citizens).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wslh 3y ago
    No, bureacracy is accepted as slow and there are organizations who are responsible and are paid for improving this. This argument is not about the EU. People are accepting bureaucracies in a Kafkian way and in a time where there are no excuses. Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection?
    - microtonal 3y ago
      Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection? You take one issue and try to nullify all consumer laws with it. First, cookie banners are not legal anymore. They should be a dialog where 'No' is the first and foremost option and 'Yes' (opt in to tracking) requires permission per type of tracking. IMO this is a large improvement over: don't even ask, just track users based on PII everywhere, which is the case pretty much everywhere outside the EU. The fact that you see banners everywhere is data hungriness of those websites. They could simply not track you by default and no banner would be needed. Though I wouldn't be surprised if a future iteration of the GDPR will forbid such banners and require no tracking to be the default. But leaving this specific points. There are many great consumer laws in the EU: * Your data bundle is valid in all EU countries. Before the EU intervened, providers would charge you through the nose for data outside your country. * A web shop in any EU country is required to deliver to any other EU country. You live in Germany, but see a phone at a Dutch web shop that is much cheaper? The Dutch web shop cannot refuse you service because you are in Germany. * You can return any online purchase within 14 days without justification (14 days after receiving the product). * There is a single Euro payment system (SEPA). How big this is, is hard to grasp if you are in a large country. But it was hard to transfer money between countries, let alone without incurring fees. Now you can transfer money to any account in the EU without fees using in a uniform way (IBAN account number). * Strong warranty laws. E.g. if a company does not solve an issue within a reasonable time, they are required to give you a full refund. I could go on and on, there are so many good examples where EU regulations improve day-to-day life.
      - wslh 3y ago
        I know Europe. Thank you. Never said that EU doesn't have consumer protection laws. I will illustrate my central point using the SEPA system you mentioned and forgetting the USA prehistoric finance platforms. SEPA was introduced in iterations in 2008, 2009, 2014, etc. The EU has the resource means to achieve this in a way that other countries (e.g. development or underdevelopment ones) couldn't do. Argentina, a super corrupt, infinite loop bureaucracy , and relatively weak country has implemented direct bank to bank transfer without fees (only taxes!) in 2001. This shows my point clearly. This was implemented in less than two years. Indeed around 1 year because they took one to work in the law. Comparing Argentina to the EU (in political terms) is, in general, completely unfair. I don't know you but I would be concerned as a taxpayer if I were living in the EU zone.
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      > Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection? The EU did not require those cookie pop-ups. Websites could have used no cookie popups and let users go to the website settings (or an "allow cookies" checkbox in the top right corner of every normal page) to turn on cookies. Instead, websites added annoying cookie pop-ups to maliciously comply or added third-party cookie banners "on accident" because the not-lawyer website owners didn't realize that the GDPR didn't ask for cookie pop-ups.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  what exact technologies do you think governments are depending on that if replaced could speed up the execution of laws and prosecution of cases?
  - wslh 3y ago
    It is not about "exact" technologies but about having a goal and execute it in a smart way. That "exact" technology could be a tool that you know how to find and use from GitHub that is written in any programming language.
wslh 3y ago
>> BTW, the EU has been quasi irrelevant in realpolitik terms. >What? Please tell how it is relevant in macro politics.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  It's the largest unified market in the world?
  - wslh 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - LunaSea 3y ago
      Is this relevant regarding consumer market importance for a brand? If I recall correctly, in the matter of the Ukraine war, the US already folded no?
      - wslh 3y ago
        I mentioned realpolitik and you continued the discussion from that point.
        izacus 3y ago
        You spewed out some bull and people called you on it to provide some support.
    - ttepasse 3y ago
      The EU itself is the biggest financier of the Ukraine. That is in addition to the individual contributions of the EU member states. The military assistance is of course a member state prerogative, but pure financial support is not nothing – after all Ukraine tries to run a country while fighting a war. And Ukraine uses that money to purchase that military equipment. Source: IFW Ukraine Support Tracker https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

by shafyy 3y ago

wslh 3y ago

This is not a conspiracy theory. Big cases shouldn't take a long time with the existing technology. It is on the political side to know how to execute laws faster. People around the world are silently accepting slow law systems instead of speeding them up. We are in 2024. BTW, I have experience working with lawyers and the legal system in significant cases. You will cry or laugh if you witness the processes and tools used.

microtonal 3y ago
I am not sure where you are going with this. Yes, we would all like this to go faster. Bureaucracy is slow. But at least the EU has strong consumer protection, privacy, and anti-competitive laws and we all benefit from it (at least EU citizens).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wslh 3y ago
  No, bureacracy is accepted as slow and there are organizations who are responsible and are paid for improving this. This argument is not about the EU. People are accepting bureaucracies in a Kafkian way and in a time where there are no excuses. Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection?
  - microtonal 3y ago
    Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection? You take one issue and try to nullify all consumer laws with it. First, cookie banners are not legal anymore. They should be a dialog where 'No' is the first and foremost option and 'Yes' (opt in to tracking) requires permission per type of tracking. IMO this is a large improvement over: don't even ask, just track users based on PII everywhere, which is the case pretty much everywhere outside the EU. The fact that you see banners everywhere is data hungriness of those websites. They could simply not track you by default and no banner would be needed. Though I wouldn't be surprised if a future iteration of the GDPR will forbid such banners and require no tracking to be the default. But leaving this specific points. There are many great consumer laws in the EU: * Your data bundle is valid in all EU countries. Before the EU intervened, providers would charge you through the nose for data outside your country. * A web shop in any EU country is required to deliver to any other EU country. You live in Germany, but see a phone at a Dutch web shop that is much cheaper? The Dutch web shop cannot refuse you service because you are in Germany. * You can return any online purchase within 14 days without justification (14 days after receiving the product). * There is a single Euro payment system (SEPA). How big this is, is hard to grasp if you are in a large country. But it was hard to transfer money between countries, let alone without incurring fees. Now you can transfer money to any account in the EU without fees using in a uniform way (IBAN account number). * Strong warranty laws. E.g. if a company does not solve an issue within a reasonable time, they are required to give you a full refund. I could go on and on, there are so many good examples where EU regulations improve day-to-day life.
    - wslh 3y ago
      I know Europe. Thank you. Never said that EU doesn't have consumer protection laws. I will illustrate my central point using the SEPA system you mentioned and forgetting the USA prehistoric finance platforms. SEPA was introduced in iterations in 2008, 2009, 2014, etc. The EU has the resource means to achieve this in a way that other countries (e.g. development or underdevelopment ones) couldn't do. Argentina, a super corrupt, infinite loop bureaucracy , and relatively weak country has implemented direct bank to bank transfer without fees (only taxes!) in 2001. This shows my point clearly. This was implemented in less than two years. Indeed around 1 year because they took one to work in the law. Comparing Argentina to the EU (in political terms) is, in general, completely unfair. I don't know you but I would be concerned as a taxpayer if I were living in the EU zone.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > Regarding EU, you said that forcing websites to put UI dialogs asking for accepting cookies is a good consumer protection? The EU did not require those cookie pop-ups. Websites could have used no cookie popups and let users go to the website settings (or an "allow cookies" checkbox in the top right corner of every normal page) to turn on cookies. Instead, websites added annoying cookie pop-ups to maliciously comply or added third-party cookie banners "on accident" because the not-lawyer website owners didn't realize that the GDPR didn't ask for cookie pop-ups.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
what exact technologies do you think governments are depending on that if replaced could speed up the execution of laws and prosecution of cases?
- wslh 3y ago
  It is not about "exact" technologies but about having a goal and execute it in a smart way. That "exact" technology could be a tool that you know how to find and use from GitHub that is written in any programming language.

wslh 3y ago

>> BTW, the EU has been quasi irrelevant in realpolitik terms. >What? Please tell how it is relevant in macro politics.

LunaSea 3y ago
It's the largest unified market in the world?
- wslh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    Is this relevant regarding consumer market importance for a brand? If I recall correctly, in the matter of the Ukraine war, the US already folded no?
    - wslh 3y ago
      I mentioned realpolitik and you continued the discussion from that point.
      - izacus 3y ago
        You spewed out some bull and people called you on it to provide some support.
  - ttepasse 3y ago
    The EU itself is the biggest financier of the Ukraine. That is in addition to the individual contributions of the EU member states. The military assistance is of course a member state prerogative, but pure financial support is not nothing – after all Ukraine tries to run a country while fighting a war. And Ukraine uses that money to purchase that military equipment. Source: IFW Ukraine Support Tracker https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...