4 ms·

> 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 adv

> 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.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > I did a search for “moral” in this thread’s history. I Well that's the wrong approach. I didn't say you kept using the exact word 'immoral', I said you were talking about the "immoral yet explicitly legal practices". That doesn't mean you are using the same exact words I used generalize your various comments and position. > That’s not “keep talking about”, that’s one mention. No, it is “keep talking about”, because in every comment discussing who is responsible for the cookie banners, you refer to the activities that are being regulated, rather than the regulation which is what is actually relevant. > You’re ascribing preconceived notions from the straw man in your head, not my words. No, no strawman. Every time you try to shift the buck to blaming the companies and not the regulation, and that's what I'm responding to and calling out. > I thus point you to those same HN guidelines Out of a petty attempt to do so after I did it because of your snark? I haven't violated the guidelines in any of my replies, and there is no strawman here. I'm addressing your arguments and your arguments only. > This law prescribes several ways to comply and not be annoying to people. What method do you propose companies that want to engage in the explicitly legal activity of data collection as long as user consent is obtained obtain that user account? In a method less annoying than a cookie banner? If you again suggest they just abstain from the explicitly legal activity of data collection as long as user consent is obtained, then you would again be trying to shift the goalposts. > Thus if a company complies in an annoying way, it’s on them. So what's the less annoying way than a cookie banner at the bottom of the screen to obtain consent, that doesn't rely on the goodness of the hearts of people running the corporations (because that would very surely be a very naive outlook to think that was realistic)? > The text of the rule is on regulators, how someone engages with that text is on them. Sure, and the cookie banners are pretty much the least annoying approach that is compliant with the regulation.

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.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> I did a search for “moral” in this thread’s history. I Well that's the wrong approach. I didn't say you kept using the exact word 'immoral', I said you were talking about the "immoral yet explicitly legal practices". That doesn't mean you are using the same exact words I used generalize your various comments and position. > That’s not “keep talking about”, that’s one mention. No, it is “keep talking about”, because in every comment discussing who is responsible for the cookie banners, you refer to the activities that are being regulated, rather than the regulation which is what is actually relevant. > You’re ascribing preconceived notions from the straw man in your head, not my words. No, no strawman. Every time you try to shift the buck to blaming the companies and not the regulation, and that's what I'm responding to and calling out. > I thus point you to those same HN guidelines Out of a petty attempt to do so after I did it because of your snark? I haven't violated the guidelines in any of my replies, and there is no strawman here. I'm addressing your arguments and your arguments only. > This law prescribes several ways to comply and not be annoying to people. What method do you propose companies that want to engage in the explicitly legal activity of data collection as long as user consent is obtained obtain that user account? In a method less annoying than a cookie banner? If you again suggest they just abstain from the explicitly legal activity of data collection as long as user consent is obtained, then you would again be trying to shift the goalposts. > Thus if a company complies in an annoying way, it’s on them. So what's the less annoying way than a cookie banner at the bottom of the screen to obtain consent, that doesn't rely on the goodness of the hearts of people running the corporations (because that would very surely be a very naive outlook to think that was realistic)? > The text of the rule is on regulators, how someone engages with that text is on them. Sure, and the cookie banners are pretty much the least annoying approach that is compliant with the regulation.