4 ms·

> I don’t know if you are trolling or so misinformed Neither, you just somehow misinterpreted my comment. > The UK and EU do limit those activities. They rema

> I don’t know if you are trolling or so misinformed Neither, you just somehow misinterpreted my comment. > The UK and EU do limit those activities. They remain entirely legal providing you get explicit opt-in consent. The point is that they do not limit them sufficiently, clearly. People who complain about the popups want to blame the businesses, but the business are doing in compliance with the law. That's the point. So blaming the business for the popups doesn't make sense, because the popups are a result of EU regulation, not the businesses doing anything wrong. Because as you say, the EU limits those activities and allows those businesses to do as they do.

latexr 2y ago
> The point is that they do not limit them sufficiently, clearly. I agree. The law should’ve been stronger. But we work now with the hand we have. > People who complain about the popups want to blame the businesses Not in my experience. There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. > but the business are doing in compliance with the law. Most aren’t. The GDPR says explicitly that withdrawing consent must be at least as easy as giving it. Yet most popular websites make it incredibly simple to accept but obtuse to refuse. However, you may have noticed that’s starting to get better. More and more websites have a clear way to reject now. Meta (Facebook / Instagram) in particular are now way clearer than at the start. We have to thank organisations such as noyb¹ for that. They have been tireless in that fight and won a number of high-profile cases. ¹ https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. I have to see it that way because blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activity and doing something mandated by regulation is crazy to me. > Most aren’t. The GDPR says explicitly that withdrawing consent must be at least as easy as giving it. Yet most popular websites make it incredibly simple to accept but obtuse to refuse. Most popups have two buttons, accept or reject. It doesn't really get simpler than that.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. That’s absurd. By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. A person doesn’t become a blind zealot because they think differently from you. > I have to see it that way No, you choose to see it that way. > blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activity Perhaps you’re too attached to the rule of law. Being legal does not mean being right, moral, or generally good. Slavery was legal at one point and then it wasn’t. Lead paint was legal and then it wasn’t. Those things weren’t good when they were legal. Companies knowingly engage in harmful legal behaviours every day. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/05/02/how-corporations-harm-your-health-through-everyday-products---a-.html https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/05/02/how-c... https://www.decof.com/documents/dangerous-products.pdf https://www.decof.com/documents/dangerous-products.pdf > Most popups have two buttons, accept or reject. It doesn't really get simpler than that. I addressed that in the previous comment. That’s becoming more common now, after years of fighting malicious compliance. Again, thank noyb and organisations like it.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > That’s absurd. It's hardly absurd, it's a common pattern in nations and online rhetoric. > By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. Just because people may defend one thing out of tribalism doesn't mean they would defend everything out of tribalism. It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. I find it bizarre, honestly. Correlation isn't causation but in this case I do think there's a link. > No, you choose to see it that way. Meh. I believe it's a reasonable position backed by evidence. > Being legal does not mean being right, moral, or generally good. Yeah, this has nothing to do with the actual root point being discussed though, which is which entity gets the blame/credit for the popups. That's the EU, no question. You don't like the data collection practices or consider them immoral? That's fair and reasonable, and we can talk about that, but it's a separate albeit adjacent issue. > Slavery was legal at one point and then it wasn’t. This is why you shift the goalposts. Now you're talking about slavery. The original point you made in this thread and the topic being discussed are the popups, regulation of an activity not the activity itself. Slavery is not analogues to popups. An analogy involving slavery would be if there were government mandate signage every 100 feet in town centers advising slaves are people and should be treated humanely (which obviously didn't happen, but it's hard to twist such a bad faith example to still make a point). > That’s becoming more common now, It's been common, i.e. the norm, since the laws came into effect.

latexr 2y ago

> The point is that they do not limit them sufficiently, clearly. I agree. The law should’ve been stronger. But we work now with the hand we have. > People who complain about the popups want to blame the businesses Not in my experience. There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. > but the business are doing in compliance with the law. Most aren’t. The GDPR says explicitly that withdrawing consent must be at least as easy as giving it. Yet most popular websites make it incredibly simple to accept but obtuse to refuse. However, you may have noticed that’s starting to get better. More and more websites have a clear way to reject now. Meta (Facebook / Instagram) in particular are now way clearer than at the start. We have to thank organisations such as noyb¹ for that. They have been tireless in that fight and won a number of high-profile cases. ¹ https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/

ruthmarx 2y ago
> There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. I have to see it that way because blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activity and doing something mandated by regulation is crazy to me. > Most aren’t. The GDPR says explicitly that withdrawing consent must be at least as easy as giving it. Yet most popular websites make it incredibly simple to accept but obtuse to refuse. Most popups have two buttons, accept or reject. It doesn't really get simpler than that.
- latexr 2y ago
  > I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. That’s absurd. By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. A person doesn’t become a blind zealot because they think differently from you. > I have to see it that way No, you choose to see it that way. > blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activity Perhaps you’re too attached to the rule of law. Being legal does not mean being right, moral, or generally good. Slavery was legal at one point and then it wasn’t. Lead paint was legal and then it wasn’t. Those things weren’t good when they were legal. Companies knowingly engage in harmful legal behaviours every day. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/05/02/how-corporations-harm-your-health-through-everyday-products---a-.html https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/05/02/how-c... https://www.decof.com/documents/dangerous-products.pdf https://www.decof.com/documents/dangerous-products.pdf > Most popups have two buttons, accept or reject. It doesn't really get simpler than that. I addressed that in the previous comment. That’s becoming more common now, after years of fighting malicious compliance. Again, thank noyb and organisations like it.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > That’s absurd. It's hardly absurd, it's a common pattern in nations and online rhetoric. > By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. Just because people may defend one thing out of tribalism doesn't mean they would defend everything out of tribalism. It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. I find it bizarre, honestly. Correlation isn't causation but in this case I do think there's a link. > No, you choose to see it that way. Meh. I believe it's a reasonable position backed by evidence. > Being legal does not mean being right, moral, or generally good. Yeah, this has nothing to do with the actual root point being discussed though, which is which entity gets the blame/credit for the popups. That's the EU, no question. You don't like the data collection practices or consider them immoral? That's fair and reasonable, and we can talk about that, but it's a separate albeit adjacent issue. > Slavery was legal at one point and then it wasn’t. This is why you shift the goalposts. Now you're talking about slavery. The original point you made in this thread and the topic being discussed are the popups, regulation of an activity not the activity itself. Slavery is not analogues to popups. An analogy involving slavery would be if there were government mandate signage every 100 feet in town centers advising slaves are people and should be treated humanely (which obviously didn't happen, but it's hard to twist such a bad faith example to still make a point). > That’s becoming more common now, It's been common, i.e. the norm, since the laws came into effect.