4 ms·
What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?
by notyourwork 1y ago
What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?
- _zoltan_ 1y agoit does not protect citizens? the EU shoves down a lot of the member state's throats.
- hardlianotion 1y agoHe also said “ill conceived”
- marginalia_nu 1y agoA good example of how this can end up with negative outcomes is the cookie directive, which is how we ended up with cookie consent popovers on every website that does absolutely nothing to prevent tracking and has only amounted to making lives more frustrating in the EU and abroad. It was a decade too late and written by people who were incredibly out of touch with the actual problem. The GDPR is a bit better, but it's still a far bigger nuisance for regular European citizens than the companies that still largely unhindered track and profile the same.
- zizee 1y agoSo because sometimes a regulation misses the mark, governments should not try to regulate?
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI think OP is criticising blindly trusting the regulation hits the mark because Meta is mad about it. Zuckerberg can be a bastard and correctly call out a burdensome law.
- marginalia_nu 1y agoWell, pragmatically, I'd say no. We must judge regulations not by the well wishes and intentions behind them but the actual outcomes they have. These regulations affect people, jobs and lives. The odds of the EU actually hitting a useful mark with these types of regulations, given their technical illiteracy, it's is just astronomically unlikely.
- RandomThoughts3 1y ago[dead]
- plopilop 1y agoCookie consent popovers were the deliberate decisions of company to create the worst possible compliance. A much simpler one could have been to stop tracking users especially when it is not their primary business. Newer regulations also mandate that "reject all cookies" should be a one click action but surprisingly compliance is low. Once again, the enemy of the customer here is the company, not the eu regulation.
- ChadNauseam 1y agoI don’t believe that every website has colluded to give themselves a horrible user experience in some kind of mass protest against the GDPR. My guess is that companies are acting in their interests, which is exactly what I expect them to do and if the EU is not capable of figuring out what that will look like then it is a valid criticism of their ability to make regulations
- 1718627440 1y agoYet that user interface is against the law and enforcing the GDPR would improve it.
- plopilop 1y agoWebsites use ready-to be used cookie banners provider by their advertisers. Who have all the incentive to make the process as painful as possible unless you click "accept", and essentially followed the model that Facebook pioneered. And since most people click on accept, websites don't really care either.
- cultureswitch 1y agoWhat makes you think the regulators didn't predict the outcome? Of course the business which depend on harvesting data will do anything they can to continue harvesting data. The regulation just makes that require consent. This is good. If businesses are intent to keep on harvesting data by using dark patterns to obtain "consent", these businesses should either die or change. This is good.
- eastbound 1y ago
- thrance 1y agoBad argument, the solution is not to not regulate, it's to make a new law mandating companies to make cookies opt-in behind a menu that can't be a banner. And if this somehow backfires too, we go again. Giving up is not the solution to the privacy crisis.
- felipeerias 1y agoThat it is very likely not going to work as advertised, and might even backfire. The EU AI regulation establishes complex rules and requirements for models trained above 10^25 FLOPS. Mistral is currently the only European company operating at that scale, and they are also asking for a pause before these rules go into effect.
- sublimefire 1y agoThe sad reality is that nobody ever cares about the security/ethics of their product unless they are pressured. Model evaluation against some well defined ethics framework or something like HarmBench are not without costs, nobody wants to do that. It is similar to pentesting. It is good that such suggestions are being pushed forward to make sure model owners are responsible here. It also protects authors and reduces the risk of their works being copied verbatim. I think this is what morel owners are afraid of the most.
- rockemsockem 1y agoTBH I would most prefer that models weren't forbidden to answer certain questions.
- CamperBob2 1y ago"Even the very wise cannot see all ends." And these people aren't what I'd call "very wise." Meanwhile, nobody in China gives a flying fuck about regulators in the EU. You probably don't care about what the Chinese are doing now, but believe me, you will if the EU hands the next trillion-Euro market over to them without a fight.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y agoEveryone working on AI will care, if ASML stops servicing TSMC's machines. If Europe is serious about responsible AI, I think applying pressure to ASML might be their only real option.
- CamperBob2 1y agoIf Europe is serious about responsible AI, I think applying pressure to ASML might be their only real option. True, but now they get to butt heads with the US, who call the tunes at ASML even though ASML is a European company. We (the US) have given China every possible incentive to break that dependency short of dropping bombs on them, and it would be foolish to think the TSMC/ASML status quo will still hold in 5-10 years. Say what you will about China, they aren't a nation of morons. Now that it's clear what's at stake, I think they will respond rationally and effectively.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoWill they resort to turning off the Internet to protect citizens?
- justinclift 1y agoOr maybe just exclude Meta from the EU? :)
- gnulinux996 1y agoIs this AI agreement about "turning off the Internet"?
- terminalshort 1y agoThis is the same entity that has literally ruled that you can be charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures, so intent to protect citizens is not a motive I ascribe to them.
- computer 1y agoWhat entity specifically?
- terminalshort 1y agoThe EU Court of Human Rights upheld a blasphemy conviction for calling Muhammad (who married a 9 year old) a pedophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)
- gretch 1y agoDang that's a crazy outcome. >Even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression. Although the expression of this opinion is otherwise acceptable, it was packed with "incriminating statements". But the subject of these incriminating statements is 2000 year old mythical figure.
- 1718627440 1y agoBut it IS protecting citizens from blasphemy.
- LostMyWords 1y ago>charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures Isn't that the exact definition of "blasphemy"[1]? [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
- 1y ago
- Workaccount2 1y agoYou end up with anemic industry and heavy dependability on foreign players.
- rdm_blackhole 1y agoThe EU is pushing for a backdoor in all major messaging/email providers to "protect the children". But it's for our own good you see? The EU knows best and it wants your data without limits and without probable cause. Everyone is a suspect. 1984 wasn't supposed to be a blueprint.
- wtcactus 1y agoBecause it doesn't protect us. It just creates barriers for internal players, while giving a massive head start for evil outside players.
- stainablesteel 1y agowhat's bad about it is when people say "it's to protect citizens" when it's really a political move to control american companies
- rockemsockem 1y agoI don't think good intentions alone are enough to do good.