3 ms·

> 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, bu

> 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.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > You keep talking about the immoral yet explicitly legal practices of these companies I did a search for “moral” in this thread’s history. I matched exactly once (twice with this one). That’s not “keep talking about”, that’s one mention. Even then it was a general point of not conflating legality with morality, it was not specific to this practice. You’re ascribing preconceived notions from the straw man in your head, not my words. I thus point you to those same HN guidelines (I agree they are quite good). > As long as those companies are engaging in legal activities, then the blame for how they engage with them goes to the regulators. This, right there, encompasses the whole nature of our disagreement. This law prescribes several ways to comply and not be annoying to people. Thus if a company complies in an annoying way, it’s on them. It’s absurd to say that the blame for how you engage with a rules is on regulators. The text of the rule is on regulators, how someone engages with that text is on them.

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.
- latexr 2y ago
  > You keep talking about the immoral yet explicitly legal practices of these companies I did a search for “moral” in this thread’s history. I matched exactly once (twice with this one). That’s not “keep talking about”, that’s one mention. Even then it was a general point of not conflating legality with morality, it was not specific to this practice. You’re ascribing preconceived notions from the straw man in your head, not my words. I thus point you to those same HN guidelines (I agree they are quite good). > As long as those companies are engaging in legal activities, then the blame for how they engage with them goes to the regulators. This, right there, encompasses the whole nature of our disagreement. This law prescribes several ways to comply and not be annoying to people. Thus if a company complies in an annoying way, it’s on them. It’s absurd to say that the blame for how you engage with a rules is on regulators. The text of the rule is on regulators, how someone engages with that text is on them.