3 ms·

Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections and all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners it would be different.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
GDPR doesn't benefit anyone? Is that a joke?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
troupo 2y ago
> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later, it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie banners. Double bonus points: why HN hails Apple for implementing "ask apps not to track", boos Facebook and others for invasive tracking, ... and boos GDPR which literally tells companies not to track users
- scarface_74 2y ago
  It doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU. But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.
      - Kbelicius 2y ago
        > The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed to be payed in sex or organs.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pages that are similar to $x on Facebook”
        Kbelicius 2y ago
        > That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. Well, per GDPR they aren't allowed to do that. Are they giving that option to users outside of EU? Why Not? > The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? No I do not think that. What made you think that I think that? What about sex and organs? In your opinion should businesses be allowed to charge you with those? > But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? I didn't give it to them. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you saying that your browsing data isn't private to you? Care to share it?
  - watwut 2y ago
    I love hearing pointificarions about unintended consequences from Americans and especially from Americans in tech. No, being free to abuse others is not a positive feature. Not for tech, not for politics, not for business.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      So was it intended for the EU not to have a tech industry of note?
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - troupo 2y ago
    > the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. So, the companies that implement these cookie banners are entirely without blame, right? So what is your solution? Reminder: GDPR is general data protection regulation. It doesn't deal with cookies at all. It deals with tracking, collecting and keeping of user data. Doesn't matter if it's on the internet, in you phone app, or in an ofline business. Reminder: if your solution is "this should've been built into the browser", then: 1) GDPR doesn't deal with specific tech (because tech changes), 2) when governments mandates specific solutions they are called overreaching overbearing tyrants and 3) why hasn't the world's largest advertising company incidentally owning the world's most popular browser implemented a technical solution for tracking and cookie banners in the browser even though it's been 8 years already? > But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR? In the long run most likely GDPR (and that's why Facebook is fighting EU in courts, and only fights Apple in newspaper ads), because Apple's "ask apps to not track" doesn't work. This was literally top article on HN just yesterday: "Everyone knows your location: tracking myself down through in-app ads" https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/ https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/ So what is your solution to that?
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Meta announced in their earnings report that ATT caused a drop in revenue after it went to effect. They made no such announcement after the GDPR. What’s my solution? There isn’t one, you know because of the way the entire internet works, the server is going to always have your IP address. For instance, neither Overcast or Apple’s podcast app actively track you or have a third party ad SDK [1]. But since they and every other real podcast player GET both the RSS feed and audio directly from the hosting provider, the hosting provider can do dynamic ad insertion based on your location by correlating it to your IP address. What I personally do avoid is not use ad supported apps because I find them janky. On my computer at least, I use the ChatGPT plug in for Chrome and it’s now my default search engine. I pay for ChatGPT and the paid version has had built in search for years.
      - troupo 2y ago
- wiz21c 2y ago
  > Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. That's the bit everyone forget. GDPR didn't ask for cookie banners at all. It asked for consent in case consent is needed. And most of the time consent is not needed since I just can say "no cookies" to many websites and everything is just fine.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Intentions don’t matter, effects do
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    So why does every website persist in annoying their users? Are they all (or 99%) simply stupid? I have a hard time believing that.
    - gjm11 2y ago
      It's (at least in some cases) malice, not stupidity. By putting cookie banners everywhere and pretending that they are a requirement of the GDPR, the owners of the websites (or of the tracking systems attached to those websites) (1) provide an opportunity for people to say "yes" to tracking they would almost certainly actually prefer not to happen, and (2) inflict an annoyance on people and blame it on the GDPR. The result: huge numbers of people think that the GDPR is a stupid law whose main effect is to produce unnecessary cookie banners, and argue against any other legislation that looks like it, and resent the organization responsible for it. Which reduces the likely future amount of legislation that might get in the way of extracting the maximum in profit by spying on people and selling their personal information to advertisers. Which is ... not a stupid thing to do, if you are in the business of spying on people and selling their personal information to advertisers.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        You really think American companies are playing that level of 3D chess? I see cookie banners on corporate sites that have no ads.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

GDPR doesn't benefit anyone? Is that a joke?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

troupo 2y ago

> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later, it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie banners. Double bonus points: why HN hails Apple for implementing "ask apps not to track", boos Facebook and others for invasive tracking, ... and boos GDPR which literally tells companies not to track users

scarface_74 2y ago
It doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU. But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.
    - Kbelicius 2y ago
      > The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed to be payed in sex or organs.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pages that are similar to $x on Facebook”
        Kbelicius 2y ago
        > That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. Well, per GDPR they aren't allowed to do that. Are they giving that option to users outside of EU? Why Not? > The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? No I do not think that. What made you think that I think that? What about sex and organs? In your opinion should businesses be allowed to charge you with those? > But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? I didn't give it to them. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you saying that your browsing data isn't private to you? Care to share it?
- watwut 2y ago
  I love hearing pointificarions about unintended consequences from Americans and especially from Americans in tech. No, being free to abuse others is not a positive feature. Not for tech, not for politics, not for business.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    So was it intended for the EU not to have a tech industry of note?
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    [flagged]
- troupo 2y ago
  > the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. So, the companies that implement these cookie banners are entirely without blame, right? So what is your solution? Reminder: GDPR is general data protection regulation. It doesn't deal with cookies at all. It deals with tracking, collecting and keeping of user data. Doesn't matter if it's on the internet, in you phone app, or in an ofline business. Reminder: if your solution is "this should've been built into the browser", then: 1) GDPR doesn't deal with specific tech (because tech changes), 2) when governments mandates specific solutions they are called overreaching overbearing tyrants and 3) why hasn't the world's largest advertising company incidentally owning the world's most popular browser implemented a technical solution for tracking and cookie banners in the browser even though it's been 8 years already? > But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR? In the long run most likely GDPR (and that's why Facebook is fighting EU in courts, and only fights Apple in newspaper ads), because Apple's "ask apps to not track" doesn't work. This was literally top article on HN just yesterday: "Everyone knows your location: tracking myself down through in-app ads" https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/ https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/ So what is your solution to that?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Meta announced in their earnings report that ATT caused a drop in revenue after it went to effect. They made no such announcement after the GDPR. What’s my solution? There isn’t one, you know because of the way the entire internet works, the server is going to always have your IP address. For instance, neither Overcast or Apple’s podcast app actively track you or have a third party ad SDK [1]. But since they and every other real podcast player GET both the RSS feed and audio directly from the hosting provider, the hosting provider can do dynamic ad insertion based on your location by correlating it to your IP address. What I personally do avoid is not use ad supported apps because I find them janky. On my computer at least, I use the ChatGPT plug in for Chrome and it’s now my default search engine. I pay for ChatGPT and the paid version has had built in search for years.
    - troupo 2y ago
wiz21c 2y ago
> Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. That's the bit everyone forget. GDPR didn't ask for cookie banners at all. It asked for consent in case consent is needed. And most of the time consent is not needed since I just can say "no cookies" to many websites and everything is just fine.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Intentions don’t matter, effects do
- HPsquared 2y ago
  So why does every website persist in annoying their users? Are they all (or 99%) simply stupid? I have a hard time believing that.
  - gjm11 2y ago
    It's (at least in some cases) malice, not stupidity. By putting cookie banners everywhere and pretending that they are a requirement of the GDPR, the owners of the websites (or of the tracking systems attached to those websites) (1) provide an opportunity for people to say "yes" to tracking they would almost certainly actually prefer not to happen, and (2) inflict an annoyance on people and blame it on the GDPR. The result: huge numbers of people think that the GDPR is a stupid law whose main effect is to produce unnecessary cookie banners, and argue against any other legislation that looks like it, and resent the organization responsible for it. Which reduces the likely future amount of legislation that might get in the way of extracting the maximum in profit by spying on people and selling their personal information to advertisers. Which is ... not a stupid thing to do, if you are in the business of spying on people and selling their personal information to advertisers.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      You really think American companies are playing that level of 3D chess? I see cookie banners on corporate sites that have no ads.