3 ms·
One way to see it is that it's their way of passive-aggressive protest against a law they don't want. Maybe the aim was never to abide by the law, just to prete
by weinzierl 2y ago
One way to see it is that it's their way of passive-aggressive protest against a law they don't want. Maybe the aim was never to abide by the law, just to pretend and annoy people enough to draw them on your side.
- dominicrose 2y agoA clear example of passive-aggressive protest was from Google, the removal of links to Google maps from the search results. Instead of providing a choice of multiple map providers, they just completely removed the links. To clarify: I'm in Europe (France).
- dspillett 2y agoOr Apple's childish hissy-fit, deliberately breaking offline app support in response to an edict about app stores.
- dspillett 2y agoI take an even more cynical view: their intent is far from passive. They want the end user to be irritated in the extreme. When users complain they'll say “we have to do this, the law says so, look, everyone else is doing the same thing” in the hope that people will support later action to have the privacy protections wound back.
- ryandrake 2y agoThe message from these antagonistic companies is clearly: "Look at what they made me do to you!" And users (even here in the HN comment section) fall for it. Like a beaten spouse. Yessssssss, it's the evil EU.... Why do they force you to beat me up?
- ragnese 2y agoOh, it's definitely malicious compliance. I have no doubt.