5 ms·

Which implies that elsewhere... There are some consumer protections that I really do wish we imported into the U.S., especially food safety and chemical usage.

Which implies that elsewhere... There are some consumer protections that I really do wish we imported into the U.S., especially food safety and chemical usage. Too much regulatory capture for that, though.

hcfman 2y ago
You guys are welcome to the Cyber Resilience act if you like. which burdens software developers to risk loosing 2.5% of their turnover (Not profit, turnover) if they are unable to deliver a critical security bug to their clients years after the guarantee has expired. So you better make sure that your new startup with hardly any money gets it right the first time because every update existentially puts your company at risk. It also means that you can't keep you margins really low as your risk remains high as it's turnover based.
zaptrem 2y ago
Why do you care if someone trains an AI on content you have chosen to post publicly (LinkedIn profile/posts)? I’d understand if it was your DMs or something but this stuff is no secret.
- mystified5016 2y ago
  Yeah, everyone should be allowed to cut down trees on public property for firewood, or dump their trash in public parks! If they didn't want these resources to be exploited, they shouldn't make them publicly accessible!
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    Cutting down a tree implies the tree is no longer there and cannot be used by others. In this case, the content is still there, unaltered.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    This is probably the worst analogy I've read this year.
  - gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
    Are we back to the “you wouldn’t download a car” pointof things?
- ManBeardPc 2y ago
  Posting images, articles and other content doesn’t grant everyone the right to use it for every purpose. Especially not to republishing it partially under the excuse a machine is doing it. It’s just not the same as someone getting inspired by it or citing it. Automatically doing something is a whole other quality from a person doing it. Police watching a protest is fine, police filming it or documenting all participants via face recognition is forbidden (at least here).
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    Well, look at it this way: you gave stuff to LinkedIn. Whatever their terms say, they're storing your stuff, they are serving your stuff, and they've reserved the right to extract value from your stuff in perpetuity, according to your agreements when you signed up, when you posted, and when they updated. Doesn't matter about your privacy settings, because it all happened on LI. I mean, you can delete the stuff you posted if you don't want future AIs trained? Delete your whole account if you didn't like LinkedIn messing with it? (I could likewise say this about MS Windows, Apples or anything: if you don't want someone to have your stuff, give it to someone else, or don't give at all?) But in the end, you voluntarily gave it to them, because it was free, but you are the product, and not the artist.
    - ManBeardPc 2y ago
      I partially agree, you agree to the terms of service. However one should also not forget that LinkedIn is quite dominant and a very big player. For many businesses it is simply not an option to not be on their platform, unless they can afford to lose potential customers and employees. Rules change for monopolies and oligopolies, and for a good reason IMHO. LinkedIn belongs to Microsoft, so does GitHub. Don’t forget Windows, Azure, Office, Visual Studio and a long list of other products. They want to take your data from all possible sources and if you just point to the TOS alone this would be totally valid. But we have to look at the bigger picture and already do so in other areas, for example GDPR.
    - gomerspiles 2y ago
      Microsoft probably owns the physical media from before LinkedIn was acquired so by your physical ownership logic they can keep using all the data you have "deleted" and ignore your new opt outs on all those backups.. The point of making legislation is to have things to enforce at times like buy outs to say things there is no reasonable way to enforce our expectation that our 2FA numbers are not abused by this new buyer so the buyout can not continue. Maybe you don't need a job social network, but presuming you do you have no way of knowing what org will own the physical media of the one you pick today unless it is in a country with competence, I.e. not the US.
- tempodox 2y ago
  > this stuff is no secret. “No secret” from a human reading it is something categorically different from a machine ingesting it en masse and retaining it forever.
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    Should we kill the Internet Archive too?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  If you're okay with it, affirmatively consent to it. For the rest of us, out-by-default seems like a reasonable basis.
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    By default you do not have a LinkedIn account.
omoikane 2y ago
> elsewhere In other places, LinkedIn silently opted the users into AI training. From few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41582951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41582951 - LinkedIn scraped user data for training before updating its terms of service https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584929 - LinkedIn silently opts users into generative AI data scraping by default
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
benreesman 2y ago
The FTC under Lina Khan’s enlightened, benevolent leadership seems anything but captured (though I agree with you that this is atypical): she’s the #1 enemy of everyone with a family office for a reason and if they don’t manage to throw her out, she seems to just be warming up. Everything from search monopoly to prescription drug price negotiation is on its back foot for the first time in decades.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rsynnott 2y ago
I think people are too quick to blame regulatory capture, tbh. Today, the US only really has one world-class regulator, which sets the standard: the SEC (the FTC is more active than is used to be, but still some ways from its glory days). With the result that one of the US's two political parties is now gunning for it, and depending on the outcome of the next election it may end up neutered. The EU is structurally difficult to effectively, ah, lobby. This, in my view, is the big differentiator; if you're a company who wants to avoid inconvenient regulations, you don't just have to compromise one political party. Unless things are very, very close, you'd have to get to, at least, tens of national parties, plus a decent bloc of MEPs, to really screw things up.
- qwytw 2y ago
  > The EU is structurally difficult to effectively, ah, lobby Also the EU doesn't have almost any any successful consumer tech companies (and the entire sector itself is small and has little real influence). On the brightside this leaves a lot of leeway to pass laws that protect consumers, regulate and limit monopolies etc. There won't be any domestic economical/political impact if MS, Google, Apple make a bit less money from ads, services and other stuff. So politicians have no reason to care about them. The few billions in occasional fines might not be a big deal on the whole but it's still extra revenue (and the EU budget isn't really that huge). e.g. the ~1.5 billion Google antitrust fine is almost 1% of EU's yearly budget. GDPR also provides a constant trickle of revenue (https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/) of course it's still pennies compared to the economic benefits of having a few successful tech megacorpos in Europe would have but I guess better than nothing.
WhyNotHugo 2y ago
> There are some consumer protections that I really do wish we imported into the U.S., especially food safety and chemical usage. It's always shocking when you find that some brand-name product tastes different in the EU because an ingredient used elsewhere is not considered apt for human consumption here. After living a few years in The Netherlands, a lot of Argentinian candy has a faint taste of something kinda chemical. A few others who've moved here expressed perceiving the same flavour. My guess so far is that living in Argentina we're continuously exposed to whatever this ingredient and become desensitised to it. When we live abroad for enough years, we become sensitive to it again.

hcfman 2y ago

You guys are welcome to the Cyber Resilience act if you like. which burdens software developers to risk loosing 2.5% of their turnover (Not profit, turnover) if they are unable to deliver a critical security bug to their clients years after the guarantee has expired. So you better make sure that your new startup with hardly any money gets it right the first time because every update existentially puts your company at risk. It also means that you can't keep you margins really low as your risk remains high as it's turnover based.

zaptrem 2y ago

Why do you care if someone trains an AI on content you have chosen to post publicly (LinkedIn profile/posts)? I’d understand if it was your DMs or something but this stuff is no secret.

mystified5016 2y ago
Yeah, everyone should be allowed to cut down trees on public property for firewood, or dump their trash in public parks! If they didn't want these resources to be exploited, they shouldn't make them publicly accessible!
- zaptrem 2y ago
  Cutting down a tree implies the tree is no longer there and cannot be used by others. In this case, the content is still there, unaltered.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  This is probably the worst analogy I've read this year.
- gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
  Are we back to the “you wouldn’t download a car” pointof things?
ManBeardPc 2y ago
Posting images, articles and other content doesn’t grant everyone the right to use it for every purpose. Especially not to republishing it partially under the excuse a machine is doing it. It’s just not the same as someone getting inspired by it or citing it. Automatically doing something is a whole other quality from a person doing it. Police watching a protest is fine, police filming it or documenting all participants via face recognition is forbidden (at least here).
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Well, look at it this way: you gave stuff to LinkedIn. Whatever their terms say, they're storing your stuff, they are serving your stuff, and they've reserved the right to extract value from your stuff in perpetuity, according to your agreements when you signed up, when you posted, and when they updated. Doesn't matter about your privacy settings, because it all happened on LI. I mean, you can delete the stuff you posted if you don't want future AIs trained? Delete your whole account if you didn't like LinkedIn messing with it? (I could likewise say this about MS Windows, Apples or anything: if you don't want someone to have your stuff, give it to someone else, or don't give at all?) But in the end, you voluntarily gave it to them, because it was free, but you are the product, and not the artist.
  - ManBeardPc 2y ago
    I partially agree, you agree to the terms of service. However one should also not forget that LinkedIn is quite dominant and a very big player. For many businesses it is simply not an option to not be on their platform, unless they can afford to lose potential customers and employees. Rules change for monopolies and oligopolies, and for a good reason IMHO. LinkedIn belongs to Microsoft, so does GitHub. Don’t forget Windows, Azure, Office, Visual Studio and a long list of other products. They want to take your data from all possible sources and if you just point to the TOS alone this would be totally valid. But we have to look at the bigger picture and already do so in other areas, for example GDPR.
  - gomerspiles 2y ago
    Microsoft probably owns the physical media from before LinkedIn was acquired so by your physical ownership logic they can keep using all the data you have "deleted" and ignore your new opt outs on all those backups.. The point of making legislation is to have things to enforce at times like buy outs to say things there is no reasonable way to enforce our expectation that our 2FA numbers are not abused by this new buyer so the buyout can not continue. Maybe you don't need a job social network, but presuming you do you have no way of knowing what org will own the physical media of the one you pick today unless it is in a country with competence, I.e. not the US.
tempodox 2y ago
> this stuff is no secret. “No secret” from a human reading it is something categorically different from a machine ingesting it en masse and retaining it forever.
- zaptrem 2y ago
  Should we kill the Internet Archive too?
rsynnott 2y ago
If you're okay with it, affirmatively consent to it. For the rest of us, out-by-default seems like a reasonable basis.
- zaptrem 2y ago
  By default you do not have a LinkedIn account.

omoikane 2y ago

> elsewhere In other places, LinkedIn silently opted the users into AI training. From few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41582951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41582951 - LinkedIn scraped user data for training before updating its terms of service https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584929 - LinkedIn silently opts users into generative AI data scraping by default

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

benreesman 2y ago

The FTC under Lina Khan’s enlightened, benevolent leadership seems anything but captured (though I agree with you that this is atypical): she’s the #1 enemy of everyone with a family office for a reason and if they don’t manage to throw her out, she seems to just be warming up. Everything from search monopoly to prescription drug price negotiation is on its back foot for the first time in decades.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 2y ago

I think people are too quick to blame regulatory capture, tbh. Today, the US only really has one world-class regulator, which sets the standard: the SEC (the FTC is more active than is used to be, but still some ways from its glory days). With the result that one of the US's two political parties is now gunning for it, and depending on the outcome of the next election it may end up neutered. The EU is structurally difficult to effectively, ah, lobby. This, in my view, is the big differentiator; if you're a company who wants to avoid inconvenient regulations, you don't just have to compromise one political party. Unless things are very, very close, you'd have to get to, at least, tens of national parties, plus a decent bloc of MEPs, to really screw things up.

qwytw 2y ago
> The EU is structurally difficult to effectively, ah, lobby Also the EU doesn't have almost any any successful consumer tech companies (and the entire sector itself is small and has little real influence). On the brightside this leaves a lot of leeway to pass laws that protect consumers, regulate and limit monopolies etc. There won't be any domestic economical/political impact if MS, Google, Apple make a bit less money from ads, services and other stuff. So politicians have no reason to care about them. The few billions in occasional fines might not be a big deal on the whole but it's still extra revenue (and the EU budget isn't really that huge). e.g. the ~1.5 billion Google antitrust fine is almost 1% of EU's yearly budget. GDPR also provides a constant trickle of revenue (https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/) of course it's still pennies compared to the economic benefits of having a few successful tech megacorpos in Europe would have but I guess better than nothing.

WhyNotHugo 2y ago

> There are some consumer protections that I really do wish we imported into the U.S., especially food safety and chemical usage. It's always shocking when you find that some brand-name product tastes different in the EU because an ingredient used elsewhere is not considered apt for human consumption here. After living a few years in The Netherlands, a lot of Argentinian candy has a faint taste of something kinda chemical. A few others who've moved here expressed perceiving the same flavour. My guess so far is that living in Argentina we're continuously exposed to whatever this ingredient and become desensitised to it. When we live abroad for enough years, we become sensitive to it again.