4 ms·

I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU c

I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.

wizzwizz4 11mo ago
That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...), I can't find the 50% figure.
- l5870uoo9y 11mo ago
  > Mario Draghi has argued that the EU's internal barriers, which are equivalent to a high tariff rate, cost more than external tariffs. He has cited IMF estimates that show these internal barriers are equivalent to a \(45\%\) tariff on manufactured goods and a \(110\%\) tariff on services. These internal market restrictions, which include regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, hinder cross-border competition and have a significant negative impact on the EU's economy. Source: https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-...
  - palata 11mo ago
    Sure, someone argues something. Who knows if it's right or wrong? It's not a hard science. How do you estimate the cost of regulations on businesses? You ask businesses. Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. "Just in case", they will say it hurts them. That is, until there is a de facto monopoly and they can't compete anymore, and at that point they start lobbying like crazy for... more regulations. Look at the drone industry: a chinese company, DJI, is light-years ahead of everybody else. What have US drone companies been doing in the last 5+ years? Begging for regulations. All that to say, it is pretty clear that no regulations is bad, and infinitely many regulations is bad. Now what's extremely difficult is to know what amount of regulation is good. And even that is simplistic: it's not about an amount of regulation, it depends on each one. The cookie hell is not a problem of regulations, it's a problem of businesses being arseholes. They know it sucks, they know they don't do anything with those cookies, but they still decide that their website will start with a goddamn cookie popup because... well because the sum of all those good humans working in those businesses results in businesses that are, themselves, big arseholes.
    - mr_toad 11mo ago
      The number of regulations is not as important as the quality of those regulations. Shame we can’t regulate the quality of regulations.
      - KPGv2 11mo ago
        The US actually has done this very thing since Reagan: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(Ronald_Reagan,_1981) https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(... That's an executive order (regulation) requiring proposed regulations undergo a cost-benefit analysis before being promulgated. It's why we got mandated backup cameras in cars: the cost-benefit analysis revealed the cost to have these in every new car was dwarfed by the cost in human lives of all the kids who were being run over in driveways bc they weren't visible behind cars.
        Y_Y 11mo ago
        That's actually pretty cool. I was somewhat disappointed, however, to aee that this applies only to "major rules" from "executive agencies" and as such doesn't seem to apply to an executive order. There would have been some recursive satisfaction to see EO12291 itself tested by its own standard.
        tech2 11mo ago
        Right, but that's a follow on to regulations about increased rear and side still heights for occupant protection, and that's a follow on from increased vehicle sizes, and that's a follow on from commercial vehicles being sold to the general public instead of regular passenger vehicles due to tax breaks, etc.
    - Y_Y 11mo ago
      > Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. Your overall point is solid, but I'd like to what I think is another reason that businesses could desire regulation. You're right that a dominant business can use its political power to "regulatory capture" its market and prevent new entrants, but I believe this isn't limited to uncompetitive markets. Regulation can also prevent "arms races" by acting like explicit collusion. A straightforward example is competitive advertising in a saturated market, like cigarettes. Under the rough assumption that cigarettes are all equivalent and most potential smokers already smoke, then competitve advertising cuts into the profit margin, and companies have to participate or lose out. If you ban advertising then it's as if the bosses all got together and agreed not to compete like that. See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31547234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31547234/
  - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
    That article does contain the correct answer, so thank you very much for finding it, although the passage you've quoted is ChatGPT gibberish not in the source given. Per https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-..., the model treats shopping local as evidence of the existence of a trade barrier, as opposed to a rational preference based on cultural and environmental considerations. This is why the numbers are ridiculously high. (Is there a 120% implicit tariff for textiles? Or do people just prefer warm clothes in the north and breezy clothes in the Mediterranean?)
    - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
      > Is there a 120% implicit tariff for textiles? Or do people just prefer warm clothes in the north and breezy clothes in the Mediterranean? There's no reason to expect the warm clothes to be made in the north and the cool clothes to be made in the south.
      - snovv_crash 11mo ago
        At scale, no. But when very small there is a reason that people from Norway made rain jackets, and the brand cachet follows that too. European people also still have a much stronger national identity than a European identity, especially compared to the US with state vs. country level.
        disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
        Languages are the biggest trade barrier in the EU.
        Y_Y 11mo ago
        Where? When there's not a more obvious choice trade is done in English, packaging usually has multiple languages (which are often mutually comprehensible with other nearby languages) and your instruction booklets and regulations are given in the 24 official languages. Sure not every country has a good standard of English, but even France seems to be able to get by. The translation infrastructure is huge, and reasonable-quality machine translation⁰ has been freely available for years now. I don't mean to refute your experience, but I am suprised by the claim, because it's really not what I've seen here. Could you give some more detail on what you mean. ⁰ EU procedure means there are some notable absences in the list, but it's pretty comprehensive once you include citizens' second languages. See https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/languages_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
- tick_tock_tick 11mo ago
  I agree if we look at what has happened to the EU over the last 2 decades the costs have to be much higher. 50% seems optimistic at best for how far behind the EU has gotten.
  - 8note 11mo ago
    should you filter out the covid era from that? coats have gotten higher, but across the board for different countries
- mnau 11mo ago
  Seems pretty real. E.g. CRA official impact assessment estimates one-time (in addition to ongoing costs) compliance cost at €500K per one product. That is enough for 10 man years per product. And that is just one of many new regulations.
gessha 11mo ago
I’m not saying the following regarding Draghi’s report or particular regulation in mind: If an unethical business gets started due to underregulation and it generates revenue and contributes to GDP, is that a good thing?
- Ferret7446 11mo ago
  If the net social cost is less than the cost from overregulation, yes
  - gbanfalvi 11mo ago
    Lmao you can’t be serious. This is something that can only be said if you can’t/won’t quantify social cost. Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Repealing Glass—Steagall led to a global financial crisis. Gig economy businesses are exploiting workers by the thousands through self employment loopholes. We have insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry. Worst of all is that we’ve likely doomed the entire planet based on what is effectively too little environmental regulation.
    - jack_tripper 11mo ago
      >Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Yes, but gambling and all vices for that matter, are a centuries old issue that's well studied and well understood by everyone, while AI(hate that term in this case) LLMs are only an issue since November 2022, while most influential politicians are dumbass boomers who don't understand how a PC or the internet works let alone how LLMs work but yet are expected to make critical decisions on these topics. So then it's safe to assume that the politicians will either fudge up the regulations due to sheer cluelessness, or they will just make decisions based on what their most influential corporate lobbyists will tell them. Either way it's bad.
      - troupo 11mo ago
        ML and other automated systems are not new, and we know enough about automated systems to come up with regulations like "no, you should not use these in a certain set of specific circumstances" or "if you're unleashing this onto the world, you have to show that you understand what you're doing" etc.
jlarocco 11mo ago
The logical extreme there is legalizing murder for hire, human trafficking, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. Privacy is in a different category altogether, but there's more to think about than just how much things cost companies.
- Ferret7446 11mo ago
  That's a straight up slippery slope logical fallacy.
  - matthewdgreen 11mo ago
    We’ve had “legitimate” for-profit firms supplying authoritarian governments with phone malware that they allegedly used to spy on and sometimes murder their dissidents. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, we’ve seen what happens if it isn’t guarded.
  - jlarocco 11mo ago
    That's technically true, but I was using it to prove my point that there's more to think about than company profits. Maybe I should have used dumping waste in a river and paying workers below minimum wage as examples. Profits could go up, but most people would agree it should still be illegal.
ikiris 11mo ago
Ok let’s take this at face value. Not being able to use child labor is a 40%+ tariff. What have we gained by framing it as such other than an extremely biased take pro unregulated business?
- nickpp 11mo ago
  Such unhinged takes are one of the reasons EU has fallen behind so much. Nobody is arguing for child labor. We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Yeah, regulation generally tries to do good but that is going to be little consolation when EU's economy will go broke because all products and services we consume are build in less-regulated territories (USA and China to be specific).
  - troupo 11mo ago
    > We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Oh no. How are you going to build your new ChatGPT wrapper without selling user data to thousands of "privacy-preserving partners"? GDPR (and a very small number of other applicable regulations) are somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. And unless you are a complete moron those regulations will maybe apply to you when you reach 10 million+ users.
    - nickpp 11mo ago
      > GDPR [...] somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. No. GDPR was presented as a company ending regulation. You make a mistake - you are doomed. The fines are in revenue percentages. User data was said to be "toxic". You touch it, you better know what you are doing or else. This kind of regulation has a strong chilling effect on the budding founder. Countless web-startups were never created because the most common monetization model (ads) became basically illegal (for European startups only, US/Chinese competitors kept enjoying full freedom). > and a very small number of other applicable regulations But it's not a small number. And regulations have a cumulative effect. See, startups are like distance running. You know it's a hard thing, but you believe you can try to do it. But then regulations are like potholes. You run around a few, but the more potholes to avoid the harder the run, until your main job turns from running to avoiding potholes. Then you simply say "why bother" and give up. The more regulations you have, the more obstacles you put in front of startups, the fewer young people choose the entrepreneur path and decide to just get some bureaucratic job instead. This is the tragedy we are living in the EU right now, in the clapping of bureaucrats who never build a product or service in their entire life and do not understand what those damn entrepreneurs are complaining about.
zenmac 11mo ago
>latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course. Normally I'm against overrgulation, but when it comes to privacy more fine for big corp is need if ANY violation is found. Rather NOT have AI than compromise on privacy.
- nickpp 11mo ago
  Interesting that you have privacy so high on your list of priorities. The general public usually considers other small thing like "cost" and "convenience" when thinking about privacy. Most of us actually don't mind losing a little privacy to read a news article when faced with the alternative of paying money or that news website ceasing to exist at all. But, hey, keep pushing your warped privacy sense onto all of us, I am sure you are right.
  - troupo 11mo ago
    Define "small amount of privacy". Is this a small amount: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452? BTW, when presented with clear non-dark-pattern choice 96% of people opt-out of "losing a little privacy": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
    - nickpp 11mo ago
      > Define "small amount of privacy". There is no universal measure for that, only each individual can answer the question for herself. GDPR is robbing people of that chance though. > Is this a small amount For me, yes. I already have a device in my pocket reporting my exact location to a private company at all times and I accepted that a long time ago. > 96% of people opt-out I bet they would chose very differently when the alternative is to pay or stop using the product. Just look how many people use privacy-destroying fidelity cards in supermarkets for some measly discounts.
pornel 11mo ago
I'm happy to burden EU companies with responsibilities like securing storage of my private data, having processes to update and delete my data, having to consider whether data collection can be minimized, and getting my consent if they want to repurpose or sell the data they've collected. It would be much cheaper and pro-business to let them collect everything and secure nothing.

wizzwizz4 11mo ago

That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...), I can't find the 50% figure.

l5870uoo9y 11mo ago
> Mario Draghi has argued that the EU's internal barriers, which are equivalent to a high tariff rate, cost more than external tariffs. He has cited IMF estimates that show these internal barriers are equivalent to a \(45\%\) tariff on manufactured goods and a \(110\%\) tariff on services. These internal market restrictions, which include regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, hinder cross-border competition and have a significant negative impact on the EU's economy. Source: https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-...
- palata 11mo ago
  Sure, someone argues something. Who knows if it's right or wrong? It's not a hard science. How do you estimate the cost of regulations on businesses? You ask businesses. Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. "Just in case", they will say it hurts them. That is, until there is a de facto monopoly and they can't compete anymore, and at that point they start lobbying like crazy for... more regulations. Look at the drone industry: a chinese company, DJI, is light-years ahead of everybody else. What have US drone companies been doing in the last 5+ years? Begging for regulations. All that to say, it is pretty clear that no regulations is bad, and infinitely many regulations is bad. Now what's extremely difficult is to know what amount of regulation is good. And even that is simplistic: it's not about an amount of regulation, it depends on each one. The cookie hell is not a problem of regulations, it's a problem of businesses being arseholes. They know it sucks, they know they don't do anything with those cookies, but they still decide that their website will start with a goddamn cookie popup because... well because the sum of all those good humans working in those businesses results in businesses that are, themselves, big arseholes.
  - mr_toad 11mo ago
    The number of regulations is not as important as the quality of those regulations. Shame we can’t regulate the quality of regulations.
    - KPGv2 11mo ago
      The US actually has done this very thing since Reagan: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(Ronald_Reagan,_1981) https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Executive_Order_12291_(... That's an executive order (regulation) requiring proposed regulations undergo a cost-benefit analysis before being promulgated. It's why we got mandated backup cameras in cars: the cost-benefit analysis revealed the cost to have these in every new car was dwarfed by the cost in human lives of all the kids who were being run over in driveways bc they weren't visible behind cars.
      - Y_Y 11mo ago
        That's actually pretty cool. I was somewhat disappointed, however, to aee that this applies only to "major rules" from "executive agencies" and as such doesn't seem to apply to an executive order. There would have been some recursive satisfaction to see EO12291 itself tested by its own standard.
      - tech2 11mo ago
        Right, but that's a follow on to regulations about increased rear and side still heights for occupant protection, and that's a follow on from increased vehicle sizes, and that's a follow on from commercial vehicles being sold to the general public instead of regular passenger vehicles due to tax breaks, etc.
  - Y_Y 11mo ago
    > Businesses have absolutely zero incentive to say that regulations are not bad. Your overall point is solid, but I'd like to what I think is another reason that businesses could desire regulation. You're right that a dominant business can use its political power to "regulatory capture" its market and prevent new entrants, but I believe this isn't limited to uncompetitive markets. Regulation can also prevent "arms races" by acting like explicit collusion. A straightforward example is competitive advertising in a saturated market, like cigarettes. Under the rough assumption that cigarettes are all equivalent and most potential smokers already smoke, then competitve advertising cuts into the profit margin, and companies have to participate or lose out. If you ban advertising then it's as if the bosses all got together and agreed not to compete like that. See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31547234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31547234/
- wizzwizz4 11mo ago
  That article does contain the correct answer, so thank you very much for finding it, although the passage you've quoted is ChatGPT gibberish not in the source given. Per https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-44-estimate-doesnt-hold https://iep.unibocconi.eu/europes-internal-tariffs-why-imfs-..., the model treats shopping local as evidence of the existence of a trade barrier, as opposed to a rational preference based on cultural and environmental considerations. This is why the numbers are ridiculously high. (Is there a 120% implicit tariff for textiles? Or do people just prefer warm clothes in the north and breezy clothes in the Mediterranean?)
  - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
    > Is there a 120% implicit tariff for textiles? Or do people just prefer warm clothes in the north and breezy clothes in the Mediterranean? There's no reason to expect the warm clothes to be made in the north and the cool clothes to be made in the south.
    - snovv_crash 11mo ago
      At scale, no. But when very small there is a reason that people from Norway made rain jackets, and the brand cachet follows that too. European people also still have a much stronger national identity than a European identity, especially compared to the US with state vs. country level.
      - disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
        Languages are the biggest trade barrier in the EU.
        Y_Y 11mo ago
        Where? When there's not a more obvious choice trade is done in English, packaging usually has multiple languages (which are often mutually comprehensible with other nearby languages) and your instruction booklets and regulations are given in the 24 official languages. Sure not every country has a good standard of English, but even France seems to be able to get by. The translation infrastructure is huge, and reasonable-quality machine translation⁰ has been freely available for years now. I don't mean to refute your experience, but I am suprised by the claim, because it's really not what I've seen here. Could you give some more detail on what you mean. ⁰ EU procedure means there are some notable absences in the list, but it's pretty comprehensive once you include citizens' second languages. See https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/languages_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
tick_tock_tick 11mo ago
I agree if we look at what has happened to the EU over the last 2 decades the costs have to be much higher. 50% seems optimistic at best for how far behind the EU has gotten.
- 8note 11mo ago
  should you filter out the covid era from that? coats have gotten higher, but across the board for different countries
mnau 11mo ago
Seems pretty real. E.g. CRA official impact assessment estimates one-time (in addition to ongoing costs) compliance cost at €500K per one product. That is enough for 10 man years per product. And that is just one of many new regulations.

gessha 11mo ago

I’m not saying the following regarding Draghi’s report or particular regulation in mind: If an unethical business gets started due to underregulation and it generates revenue and contributes to GDP, is that a good thing?

Ferret7446 11mo ago
If the net social cost is less than the cost from overregulation, yes
- gbanfalvi 11mo ago
  Lmao you can’t be serious. This is something that can only be said if you can’t/won’t quantify social cost. Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Repealing Glass—Steagall led to a global financial crisis. Gig economy businesses are exploiting workers by the thousands through self employment loopholes. We have insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry. Worst of all is that we’ve likely doomed the entire planet based on what is effectively too little environmental regulation.
  - jack_tripper 11mo ago
    >Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Yes, but gambling and all vices for that matter, are a centuries old issue that's well studied and well understood by everyone, while AI(hate that term in this case) LLMs are only an issue since November 2022, while most influential politicians are dumbass boomers who don't understand how a PC or the internet works let alone how LLMs work but yet are expected to make critical decisions on these topics. So then it's safe to assume that the politicians will either fudge up the regulations due to sheer cluelessness, or they will just make decisions based on what their most influential corporate lobbyists will tell them. Either way it's bad.
    - troupo 11mo ago
      ML and other automated systems are not new, and we know enough about automated systems to come up with regulations like "no, you should not use these in a certain set of specific circumstances" or "if you're unleashing this onto the world, you have to show that you understand what you're doing" etc.

jlarocco 11mo ago

The logical extreme there is legalizing murder for hire, human trafficking, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. Privacy is in a different category altogether, but there's more to think about than just how much things cost companies.

Ferret7446 11mo ago
That's a straight up slippery slope logical fallacy.
- matthewdgreen 11mo ago
  We’ve had “legitimate” for-profit firms supplying authoritarian governments with phone malware that they allegedly used to spy on and sometimes murder their dissidents. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, we’ve seen what happens if it isn’t guarded.
- jlarocco 11mo ago
  That's technically true, but I was using it to prove my point that there's more to think about than company profits. Maybe I should have used dumping waste in a river and paying workers below minimum wage as examples. Profits could go up, but most people would agree it should still be illegal.

ikiris 11mo ago

Ok let’s take this at face value. Not being able to use child labor is a 40%+ tariff. What have we gained by framing it as such other than an extremely biased take pro unregulated business?

nickpp 11mo ago
Such unhinged takes are one of the reasons EU has fallen behind so much. Nobody is arguing for child labor. We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Yeah, regulation generally tries to do good but that is going to be little consolation when EU's economy will go broke because all products and services we consume are build in less-regulated territories (USA and China to be specific).
- troupo 11mo ago
  > We are just fighting for the right to build startups without worrying about reading hundred-page regulation manuals and having to hire "compliance officers" before even turning a profit. Oh no. How are you going to build your new ChatGPT wrapper without selling user data to thousands of "privacy-preserving partners"? GDPR (and a very small number of other applicable regulations) are somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. And unless you are a complete moron those regulations will maybe apply to you when you reach 10 million+ users.
  - nickpp 11mo ago
    > GDPR [...] somewhere between place 1000 and 1500 of things that hinder startups. No. GDPR was presented as a company ending regulation. You make a mistake - you are doomed. The fines are in revenue percentages. User data was said to be "toxic". You touch it, you better know what you are doing or else. This kind of regulation has a strong chilling effect on the budding founder. Countless web-startups were never created because the most common monetization model (ads) became basically illegal (for European startups only, US/Chinese competitors kept enjoying full freedom). > and a very small number of other applicable regulations But it's not a small number. And regulations have a cumulative effect. See, startups are like distance running. You know it's a hard thing, but you believe you can try to do it. But then regulations are like potholes. You run around a few, but the more potholes to avoid the harder the run, until your main job turns from running to avoiding potholes. Then you simply say "why bother" and give up. The more regulations you have, the more obstacles you put in front of startups, the fewer young people choose the entrepreneur path and decide to just get some bureaucratic job instead. This is the tragedy we are living in the EU right now, in the clapping of bureaucrats who never build a product or service in their entire life and do not understand what those damn entrepreneurs are complaining about.

zenmac 11mo ago

>latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course. Normally I'm against overrgulation, but when it comes to privacy more fine for big corp is need if ANY violation is found. Rather NOT have AI than compromise on privacy.

nickpp 11mo ago
Interesting that you have privacy so high on your list of priorities. The general public usually considers other small thing like "cost" and "convenience" when thinking about privacy. Most of us actually don't mind losing a little privacy to read a news article when faced with the alternative of paying money or that news website ceasing to exist at all. But, hey, keep pushing your warped privacy sense onto all of us, I am sure you are right.
- troupo 11mo ago
  Define "small amount of privacy". Is this a small amount: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992452? BTW, when presented with clear non-dark-pattern choice 96% of people opt-out of "losing a little privacy": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
  - nickpp 11mo ago
    > Define "small amount of privacy". There is no universal measure for that, only each individual can answer the question for herself. GDPR is robbing people of that chance though. > Is this a small amount For me, yes. I already have a device in my pocket reporting my exact location to a private company at all times and I accepted that a long time ago. > 96% of people opt-out I bet they would chose very differently when the alternative is to pay or stop using the product. Just look how many people use privacy-destroying fidelity cards in supermarkets for some measly discounts.

pornel 11mo ago

I'm happy to burden EU companies with responsibilities like securing storage of my private data, having processes to update and delete my data, having to consider whether data collection can be minimized, and getting my consent if they want to repurpose or sell the data they've collected. It would be much cheaper and pro-business to let them collect everything and secure nothing.