7 ms·

> 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

> 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
    > It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. You keep saying that. How do you know? Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality. > I find it bizarre, honestly. And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, but I’m not going to pretend to know where those people live and accuse them of tribalism. > This is why you shift the goalposts. I’m not sure you understand what an example is. They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject. They are often employed when agreement is hard to reach on some specific matter and are meant to bring a more general concept into light so both parties can understand where the root of the disagreement comes from. > It's been common, i.e. the norm, since the laws came into effect. You are wildly misinformed. If they had been the norm, there wouldn’t have been so many cases of complaints and organisations created specifically to combat those. But I don’t think continuing to converse with you is a good use of anyone’s time. There’s no point in discussing when the other party is already locked in a predetermined belief that whoever disagrees with them is doing so out of tribalism.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > You keep saying that. How do you know? Because I find the position not to blame the EU so baffling and irrational that I was curious about the people who advocate that position. The first few times I checked the profiles it was very clearly EU users. I kept checking, while being very aware of and cautious of falling prey to confirmation bias, yet the same pattern kept holding. > Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality. Enough EU users freely comment in their history that they are in the EU somewhere, because enough threads come up where it's relevant. It's really not that hard to ascertain nationality of HN profiles with activity at all. > And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, No one is doing that in a context relevant to this thread. It's literally a red herring. The issue to who gets the blame/credit for the cookie popups. That's it. > I’m not sure you understand what an example is. It's been so hard for me to bite my tongue and withhold snark due to your positions, and yet here you give in to the temptation freely. Kind of frustrating. Please remember the HN guidelines. > They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject. Exactly, but to use an analogy you're discussing how people speeding are a problem while everyone else is complaining about the sirens of a police unit specifically to catch speeders are too loud. Your position is a red herring. You keep talking about the immoral yet explicitly legal practices of these companies, and it's entirely irrelevant. As long as those companies are engaging in legal activities, then the blame for how they engage with them goes to the regulators.
GJim 2y ago
> I see that as patriotism Don't take the piss! It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  Not taking the piss, it's my genuine position after seeing this discussions on HN for years. > It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. The context here is limited to assigning blame/credit for the cookie popups. > This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well. Tribalism then.

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
  > It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. You keep saying that. How do you know? Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality. > I find it bizarre, honestly. And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, but I’m not going to pretend to know where those people live and accuse them of tribalism. > This is why you shift the goalposts. I’m not sure you understand what an example is. They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject. They are often employed when agreement is hard to reach on some specific matter and are meant to bring a more general concept into light so both parties can understand where the root of the disagreement comes from. > It's been common, i.e. the norm, since the laws came into effect. You are wildly misinformed. If they had been the norm, there wouldn’t have been so many cases of complaints and organisations created specifically to combat those. But I don’t think continuing to converse with you is a good use of anyone’s time. There’s no point in discussing when the other party is already locked in a predetermined belief that whoever disagrees with them is doing so out of tribalism.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > You keep saying that. How do you know? Because I find the position not to blame the EU so baffling and irrational that I was curious about the people who advocate that position. The first few times I checked the profiles it was very clearly EU users. I kept checking, while being very aware of and cautious of falling prey to confirmation bias, yet the same pattern kept holding. > Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality. Enough EU users freely comment in their history that they are in the EU somewhere, because enough threads come up where it's relevant. It's really not that hard to ascertain nationality of HN profiles with activity at all. > And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, No one is doing that in a context relevant to this thread. It's literally a red herring. The issue to who gets the blame/credit for the cookie popups. That's it. > I’m not sure you understand what an example is. It's been so hard for me to bite my tongue and withhold snark due to your positions, and yet here you give in to the temptation freely. Kind of frustrating. Please remember the HN guidelines. > They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject. Exactly, but to use an analogy you're discussing how people speeding are a problem while everyone else is complaining about the sirens of a police unit specifically to catch speeders are too loud. Your position is a red herring. You keep talking about the immoral yet explicitly legal practices of these companies, and it's entirely irrelevant. As long as those companies are engaging in legal activities, then the blame for how they engage with them goes to the regulators.

GJim 2y ago

> I see that as patriotism Don't take the piss! It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well.

ruthmarx 2y ago
Not taking the piss, it's my genuine position after seeing this discussions on HN for years. > It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. The context here is limited to assigning blame/credit for the cookie popups. > This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well. Tribalism then.