5 ms·

Doesn't that argument work both ways? If you interpret the EU's regulation with the "lens of game theory", it is an unintended consequence of aggressive corpora

by n4r9 3y ago

Doesn't that argument work both ways? If you interpret the EU's regulation with the "lens of game theory", it is an unintended consequence of aggressive corporate data collection. Not sure why it makes sense to complain about the EU and not the companies.

polygamous_bat 3y ago
> Not sure why it makes sense to complain about the EU and not the companies. Unfortunately a non-negligible number of people in tech also have libertarian leanings, with a default “gubmint bad!” position, which makes them easy prey for adtech propaganda.
- gred 3y ago
  > Unfortunately a non-negligible number of people in tech also have libertarian leanings Why is this unfortunate? Because you don't agree with us? The "they would agree with me if they were smarter" trope is tired and gets us nowhere.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Why is this unfortunate? GP answered your question, for some reason you decided to cut the quote right before the answer. Here is the part that is missing from your quote which answers your question: '[...]with a default “gubmint bad!” position'
    - gred 3y ago
      Pretty clearly implying the diminished mental capacity which prevents us from agreeing with him, no? I addressed this above: > The "they would agree with me if they were smarter" trope is tired and gets us nowhere.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Some people have a default “gubmint gud business bad” position and assume that disagreement is only possible if you’re a brainwashed bootlicker. I say that’s unfortunate
    - Gormo 3y ago
      Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason why libertarians assume a default "gubmint bad!" reaction to new policy interventions is that they are sensitized due to decades of experience seeing multitudes of government interventions both (a) to achieve their intended outcomes and (b) create unintended consequences, often worse than the problems they are meant to solve, instead. Personally, I find it very very strange that many of the people who call for regulation as a remedy to perverse incentives manifest in commercial markets seem unwilling to recognize the existence of even more perverse incentives in the political realm. If people seeking profit sometimes do bad things to get it, why would people seeking political power be expected to behave differently?
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  That's beside the point. If you are in favour of government intervention you should be all the more interested in good policies that have the intended effect. Bad laws boost libertarianism.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Also, lying about good laws boosts libertarianism. At least until you realise what they're doing, then you think they're skeevy corporate toadies with no morals.
- FredPret 3y ago
  How arrogant to assume your position should be the default one, and people who don’t agree with you are - of course - easy prey for propaganda.
  - hallway_monitor 3y ago
    Seems to be a common tactic from a certain faction currently in power in the United States.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Not just a US phenomenon - it's gone global
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. If a law has bad outcomes it is a bad law. You can separately complain about what companies are doing but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad law. It is of course debatable whether GDPR as a whole has bad outcomes, but if we're talking about cookie banners in isolation then it certainly does.
- zanellato19 3y ago
  Exposing the fact that the entire internet is tracking is actually a good outcome.
- ragnese 3y ago
  > No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. > > Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. [...] You don't seem to explain what the role of corporations is or what a good corporation looks like. If these things are not symmetric, you need to finish your explanation of why or how they aren't. Corporations and the whole of property rights only exist because of government protection, so it would be pretty audacious--in my opinion--to assert that corporations have no duty to behave to the benefit of society. I'm not saying that's your claim, but I'm curious as to how close you're willing to get to that claim...
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    Governments are supposed to represent the whole of society. The justification for their policies is ideally based on democratic legitimacy. No entity outside of government can possibly have that legitimacy. In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around.
CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Of course not. Only titans of industry and the landed gentry of the executive class are allowed to "move fast and break things", "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" and take "imperfect action rather than perfect action." It's more morally permissible for corporate decision makers to install a global surveillance complex than for civil servants to attempt to regulate it.
- sshine 3y ago
  > It's more morally permissible for corporate decision makers to install a global surveillance complex No, it's more transparent. Unlike cookie banners. If only cookie banners protected the consumer, but shadow cookies work fine.
  - Tarq0n 3y ago
    That's a misuderstanding of the banners. The requirement is to get consent to track someone and/or process their personal information in a way that is not strictly necessary or covered by contract. The mechanism that does the tracking is irrelevant.
edanm 3y ago
Because the companies are getting what they want (data on users), but the regulation is not getting what it wants (no tracking or informed tracking). I don't know if this mini-competition between regulators and companies is truly zero-sum, there could be some way to get everyone something they want. But with the current regulation, it is zero-sum, and the companies are winning and the EU is losing. And the EU "works for you", so of course you can complain to them.
- n4r9 3y ago
  > the regulation is not getting what it wants (no tracking or informed tracking) That's an overstatement of the purpose of the regulation IMO. The purpose is to give the user control over the tracking of their data.
  - edanm 3y ago
    OK, fair enough. pg's point still stands I think - I believe that most users have zero idea what that popup is and don't bother doing anything but clicking on it immediately even if they do have some idea.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      I find it pretty difficult to be sure what point pg is making, because he uses an ambiguous phrase "good at regulation". What does he mean by "good at regulation"? According to the UK's Institute of Chartered Accountants [0] good regulation satisfies five criteria: * Transparency * Accountability * Proportionality * Consistency * Targeting I'm not certain that the GDPR laws fail any of these. I'm guessing pg is getting at something more nebulous to do with how annoying the UX is as a result of the regulation, and whether it encourages civil engagement. But if he'd simply said "EU regulation has made UX annoying" then he wouldn't have such a snappy tweet. [0] https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/better-regulation/better-regulation-briefing/1-principles-of-good-regulation https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/better-regu... EDIT I googled some more and found a brochure from the National Audit Office titled "Principles of Effective Regulation": https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Principles-of-effective-regulation-SOff-interactive-accessible.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Principles... It does have a statement in there: > Good regulation maximises the benefits while minimising compliance costs and unintended consequences. The benefits of regulation can be both to wider society (such as improved environmental or safety standards) and to regulated (for example, through increased consumer confidence), but not all of the benefits are necessarily easy to quantify. Put that way, I can get on board with what pg's saying.

by n4r9 3y ago

polygamous_bat 3y ago

> Not sure why it makes sense to complain about the EU and not the companies. Unfortunately a non-negligible number of people in tech also have libertarian leanings, with a default “gubmint bad!” position, which makes them easy prey for adtech propaganda.

gred 3y ago
> Unfortunately a non-negligible number of people in tech also have libertarian leanings Why is this unfortunate? Because you don't agree with us? The "they would agree with me if they were smarter" trope is tired and gets us nowhere.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > Why is this unfortunate? GP answered your question, for some reason you decided to cut the quote right before the answer. Here is the part that is missing from your quote which answers your question: '[...]with a default “gubmint bad!” position'
  - gred 3y ago
    Pretty clearly implying the diminished mental capacity which prevents us from agreeing with him, no? I addressed this above: > The "they would agree with me if they were smarter" trope is tired and gets us nowhere.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Some people have a default “gubmint gud business bad” position and assume that disagreement is only possible if you’re a brainwashed bootlicker. I say that’s unfortunate
  - Gormo 3y ago
    Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason why libertarians assume a default "gubmint bad!" reaction to new policy interventions is that they are sensitized due to decades of experience seeing multitudes of government interventions both (a) to achieve their intended outcomes and (b) create unintended consequences, often worse than the problems they are meant to solve, instead. Personally, I find it very very strange that many of the people who call for regulation as a remedy to perverse incentives manifest in commercial markets seem unwilling to recognize the existence of even more perverse incentives in the political realm. If people seeking profit sometimes do bad things to get it, why would people seeking political power be expected to behave differently?
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
That's beside the point. If you are in favour of government intervention you should be all the more interested in good policies that have the intended effect. Bad laws boost libertarianism.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Also, lying about good laws boosts libertarianism. At least until you realise what they're doing, then you think they're skeevy corporate toadies with no morals.
FredPret 3y ago
How arrogant to assume your position should be the default one, and people who don’t agree with you are - of course - easy prey for propaganda.
- hallway_monitor 3y ago
  Seems to be a common tactic from a certain faction currently in power in the United States.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Not just a US phenomenon - it's gone global

fauigerzigerk 3y ago

No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. If a law has bad outcomes it is a bad law. You can separately complain about what companies are doing but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad law. It is of course debatable whether GDPR as a whole has bad outcomes, but if we're talking about cookie banners in isolation then it certainly does.

zanellato19 3y ago
Exposing the fact that the entire internet is tracking is actually a good outcome.
ragnese 3y ago
> No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. > > Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. [...] You don't seem to explain what the role of corporations is or what a good corporation looks like. If these things are not symmetric, you need to finish your explanation of why or how they aren't. Corporations and the whole of property rights only exist because of government protection, so it would be pretty audacious--in my opinion--to assert that corporations have no duty to behave to the benefit of society. I'm not saying that's your claim, but I'm curious as to how close you're willing to get to that claim...
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  Governments are supposed to represent the whole of society. The justification for their policies is ideally based on democratic legitimacy. No entity outside of government can possibly have that legitimacy. In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around.

CipherThrowaway 3y ago

Of course not. Only titans of industry and the landed gentry of the executive class are allowed to "move fast and break things", "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" and take "imperfect action rather than perfect action." It's more morally permissible for corporate decision makers to install a global surveillance complex than for civil servants to attempt to regulate it.

sshine 3y ago
> It's more morally permissible for corporate decision makers to install a global surveillance complex No, it's more transparent. Unlike cookie banners. If only cookie banners protected the consumer, but shadow cookies work fine.
- Tarq0n 3y ago
  That's a misuderstanding of the banners. The requirement is to get consent to track someone and/or process their personal information in a way that is not strictly necessary or covered by contract. The mechanism that does the tracking is irrelevant.

edanm 3y ago

Because the companies are getting what they want (data on users), but the regulation is not getting what it wants (no tracking or informed tracking). I don't know if this mini-competition between regulators and companies is truly zero-sum, there could be some way to get everyone something they want. But with the current regulation, it is zero-sum, and the companies are winning and the EU is losing. And the EU "works for you", so of course you can complain to them.

n4r9 3y ago
> the regulation is not getting what it wants (no tracking or informed tracking) That's an overstatement of the purpose of the regulation IMO. The purpose is to give the user control over the tracking of their data.
- edanm 3y ago
  OK, fair enough. pg's point still stands I think - I believe that most users have zero idea what that popup is and don't bother doing anything but clicking on it immediately even if they do have some idea.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    I find it pretty difficult to be sure what point pg is making, because he uses an ambiguous phrase "good at regulation". What does he mean by "good at regulation"? According to the UK's Institute of Chartered Accountants [0] good regulation satisfies five criteria: * Transparency * Accountability * Proportionality * Consistency * Targeting I'm not certain that the GDPR laws fail any of these. I'm guessing pg is getting at something more nebulous to do with how annoying the UX is as a result of the regulation, and whether it encourages civil engagement. But if he'd simply said "EU regulation has made UX annoying" then he wouldn't have such a snappy tweet. [0] https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/better-regulation/better-regulation-briefing/1-principles-of-good-regulation https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/better-regu... EDIT I googled some more and found a brochure from the National Audit Office titled "Principles of Effective Regulation": https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Principles-of-effective-regulation-SOff-interactive-accessible.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Principles... It does have a statement in there: > Good regulation maximises the benefits while minimising compliance costs and unintended consequences. The benefits of regulation can be both to wider society (such as improved environmental or safety standards) and to regulated (for example, through increased consumer confidence), but not all of the benefits are necessarily easy to quantify. Put that way, I can get on board with what pg's saying.