4 ms·

The blog clearly works from the actual outcome lense. It's repeated. Several times. The companies could just not track. The actual outcome is that they do want

The blog clearly works from the actual outcome lense. It's repeated. Several times. The companies could just not track. The actual outcome is that they do want to track, and use adversarial patterns and malicious compliance to twist your arm and "force consent." Paul Graham is still wrong.

jasode 3y ago
>The blog clearly works from the actual outcome lense. [...] The companies _could_ just not track. No, you've inadvertently stated a contradiction. Your use of the word _"could"_ is literally a hope/wish/intention of the law. In contrast, the actual outcome is that the companies didn't stop tracking. We _wish_ they would stop tracking. (I.e. "The companies _could_ just stop tracking us!") But that hope still doesn't change the observation of reality.
- hikingsimulator 3y ago
  The law is not code. Equating hope with the intention of the law is a poor way to think about it. The law is to protect users against opaque companies and to enable them making informed choices. If companies act maliciously to contort around the law and force users back to making uninformed choices, it is the companies' fault and not the law's. Companies could have followed the interpretation of the law unobstrusively. But they didn't. Invoking "reality," semanticking a position, do not make Graham's position justified. Neither does it make the blog wrong.
- itishappy 3y ago
  But companies have stopped tracking (or they've started lying). I can now opt out. I could not before.
voxic11 3y ago
Can you really say that confidently? I think a lot of these companies would go out of business if they didn't track users so it seems like under the law they have no option but to show cookie banners. Or are you claiming the law exempts companies in such circumstances?
- itishappy 3y ago
  I'm sure illegal/unethical actions would help a lot of struggling companies.

jasode 3y ago

>The blog clearly works from the actual outcome lense. [...] The companies _could_ just not track. No, you've inadvertently stated a contradiction. Your use of the word _"could"_ is literally a hope/wish/intention of the law. In contrast, the actual outcome is that the companies didn't stop tracking. We _wish_ they would stop tracking. (I.e. "The companies _could_ just stop tracking us!") But that hope still doesn't change the observation of reality.

hikingsimulator 3y ago
The law is not code. Equating hope with the intention of the law is a poor way to think about it. The law is to protect users against opaque companies and to enable them making informed choices. If companies act maliciously to contort around the law and force users back to making uninformed choices, it is the companies' fault and not the law's. Companies could have followed the interpretation of the law unobstrusively. But they didn't. Invoking "reality," semanticking a position, do not make Graham's position justified. Neither does it make the blog wrong.
itishappy 3y ago
But companies have stopped tracking (or they've started lying). I can now opt out. I could not before.

voxic11 3y ago

Can you really say that confidently? I think a lot of these companies would go out of business if they didn't track users so it seems like under the law they have no option but to show cookie banners. Or are you claiming the law exempts companies in such circumstances?

itishappy 3y ago
I'm sure illegal/unethical actions would help a lot of struggling companies.