4 ms·

> No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting You are deliberately missing the point and shifting the goalpost

> No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting You are deliberately missing the point and shifting the goalposts. You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? There are so many more important things business should voluntarily abstain from by that reasoning. No, as long as the behavior remains legal, a business has every right to engage in such activity. The only reason the cookie popups are a thing is because the **EU** mandated some sort of notification which basically mapped to these popups. So it's the EU to lame. No question about it. A business engaging in legal activity is not to blame, since it's the regulations around that activity and not the businesses practicing the activity that are the topic of discussion here. Stop shifting the buck. It's so incredibly dishonest.

latexr 2y ago
> You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. Yes indeed, why would businesses do that voluntarily? The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, they are forced by law. In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st... Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels and would prefer there to be none? I mean, you do you, but please don’t accuse others of goal shifting and dishonesty simply because you misunderstood an argument. My position has remained consistent, I gave the poison example (which you chose to ignore) in the first post.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. I'm not making any mistake. You continue to make the mistake to blame the businesses doing *legal* activities and complying with the *EU Regulation* that dictates the cookie popups. > The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, They are not abstaining from legal behavior that makes them money, like literally every other business in acceptance. Which means they are not doing anything remarkable, yet you are remarking on it. Why? > In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Not exactly. The EU has very specifically made the practice legal, but with regulations. You're doing the equivalent of blaming tobacco companies for including graphic warnings on their packaging as is the case in some countries, when it's not them doing it voluntarily, it's a result of those governments imposing it. > Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Exactly. The *EU* regulated that informed consent is required, requiring some kind of popup to the user. So, those companies are engaging in an explicitly legal practice, and doing so in the way the *EU* forces them to do so. So EU gets the blame. > Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. I genuinely typed my analogy above before I read this part of your reply. Amazing. > Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels YES! Those warnings only exist because the governments are imposing them as a requirement. Seriously, what's not to get here? If we follow your reasoning on the popups, to be consistent you would blame the tobacco companies for those warnings existing. > simply because you misunderstood an argument. What is it you think I've misunderstood? What do you think I think your position is as opposed to what it actually is? I'm certain I haven't misunderstood a thing. What is the subject of the blame you were implicitly referring to in your first comment where you say "Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it." What is the 'it' your refer to, if not the cookie popups? > My position has remained consistent Yes, your position is that the popups are not to be credited to the EU, which is absolutely wrong. They only exist because the EU dictates they need to for companies engaging in a specific legal activity. You say in your first post "The label isn’t the problem! ", but that's the topic of discussion, that's the subject of the blame we are debating how to assign. The issue of companies data collection and distribution practices are worth discussing, any any illegal activity needs to be dealt with. But that isn't relevant to who gets the blame/credit for the popups.

latexr 2y ago

> You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. Yes indeed, why would businesses do that voluntarily? The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, they are forced by law. In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st... Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels and would prefer there to be none? I mean, you do you, but please don’t accuse others of goal shifting and dishonesty simply because you misunderstood an argument. My position has remained consistent, I gave the poison example (which you chose to ignore) in the first post.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. I'm not making any mistake. You continue to make the mistake to blame the businesses doing *legal* activities and complying with the *EU Regulation* that dictates the cookie popups. > The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, They are not abstaining from legal behavior that makes them money, like literally every other business in acceptance. Which means they are not doing anything remarkable, yet you are remarking on it. Why? > In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Not exactly. The EU has very specifically made the practice legal, but with regulations. You're doing the equivalent of blaming tobacco companies for including graphic warnings on their packaging as is the case in some countries, when it's not them doing it voluntarily, it's a result of those governments imposing it. > Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Exactly. The *EU* regulated that informed consent is required, requiring some kind of popup to the user. So, those companies are engaging in an explicitly legal practice, and doing so in the way the *EU* forces them to do so. So EU gets the blame. > Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. I genuinely typed my analogy above before I read this part of your reply. Amazing. > Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels YES! Those warnings only exist because the governments are imposing them as a requirement. Seriously, what's not to get here? If we follow your reasoning on the popups, to be consistent you would blame the tobacco companies for those warnings existing. > simply because you misunderstood an argument. What is it you think I've misunderstood? What do you think I think your position is as opposed to what it actually is? I'm certain I haven't misunderstood a thing. What is the subject of the blame you were implicitly referring to in your first comment where you say "Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it." What is the 'it' your refer to, if not the cookie popups? > My position has remained consistent Yes, your position is that the popups are not to be credited to the EU, which is absolutely wrong. They only exist because the EU dictates they need to for companies engaging in a specific legal activity. You say in your first post "The label isn’t the problem! ", but that's the topic of discussion, that's the subject of the blame we are debating how to assign. The issue of companies data collection and distribution practices are worth discussing, any any illegal activity needs to be dealt with. But that isn't relevant to who gets the blame/credit for the popups.