[Tomte]

I find it funny to claim that the US could be more proportionate than the EU.

Less targeted ads are exactly what we need. That's what the regulation aims for!

Your argument is like claiming that unfortunately, due to car dafety regulations, we cannot enjoy as many fatal accidents as we once did.

And to make my point of view clear: not all businesses deserve to exist. We as society decide which business models and behaviours are okay. "Decrease the total amount of commercial businesses started" cannot ever be a persuasive argument.

[manigandham]

This issue isnt about privacy...

Nobody reasonable is arguing that it's a bad idea to let customers control their data. The actual issue is that the rules are vague and thus create a lot of confusion and waste that affects all companies, while not providing any real protection against the massive conglomerates that abuse data in the first place.

[knuththetruth]

>The #1 complaint about ads is that they are not relevant, so this does nothing but increase that problem.

The #1 complaint about advertising is that in 2018, it has evolved into a shadowy, insecure brokerage of surveillance data that it obtains using all kinds of under-handed tactics. If the GDPR curbs this in the slightest, it will be a net positive for people of Europe.

[manigandham]

It will not curb it. Facebook and Google who control 90% of the ad industry will already have consent from billions of people by the end of the day, and the increased regulation will only increase their market share as the safe and reliable avenue for advertisers and further strengthen their monopolies and data activities.

[Tomte]

Facebook certainly doesn't have full consent under the GDPR.

They are playing games, and don't respect the requirements that the GDPR puts on "consent": focussed, freely given (non-punitive), fully informed.

[manigandham]

Sure, one of the most valuable companies on the planet with an army of lawyers doesn't know what it's doing.

Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?

[hk__2]

> Sure, one of the most valuable companies on the planet with an army of lawyers doesn't know what it's doing.

This a fallacy, not an argument. [1]

> Or maybe it's because the rules are confusing and messy and you have a different interpretation?

Please point out which rules are confusing and/or messy. Virtualy every single blog post about GDPR points out how it’s well written compared to other juridictions on the same subject. The language is clear and the website provides a Q/A section as well as concrete example for every point.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[Tomte]

They know exactly what they‘re doing. They are willfully breaking the law because it makes them money.

Maybe your playacting is simply because you‘re „Currently working on Instinctive, a B2B marketing technology company.“?

[solomatov]

>Less targeted ads are exactly what we need. That's what the regulation aims for!

I have nothing against targeted ads. I am against targeting ads and collecting/distributing my data without my explicit consent. E.g. mobile companies selling my real time location because there's some obscure sentence in their 90 page terms of service.

[ajuc]

> I am against targeting ads and collecting/distributing my data without my explicit consent.

Which is exactly what GDPR is designed to stop. You're welcome - the rest of the world.

[takeda]

And this is exactly what GDPR does, you then have an option to opt-in.

I wish regulation like GDPR would also be implemented in US, but really unlikely.

[dennisgorelik]

Please learn from the experience of dealing with side effects of GDPR in EU first, before trying to push it to the US.

The side effects would include:

1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers.

2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

[kekumu]

> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice.

It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.

[hackerman12345]

Not allowing businesses to fire customers who don't want to share anything sounds like a massive problem for companies who's revenue model depends on user info. Think of all the people who don't want to share anything but still aren't willing to type in CC info for facebook, are they entitled to free facebook use on the companies' dime?

[manigandham]

> doesn't count as a real choice.

Why not?

[kekumu]

Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely.

The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?

[hk__2]

> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers.

That’s not a bad thing. If services that don’t want to protect their users’ privacy can’t operate, that’s a good thing.

> 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

How does this have anything to do with GDPR?

[manigandham]

Not wanting extra regulation and associated costs does not mean a business intended to not protect their users privacy.

[kekumu]

It's a difference in how much a business values their users' privacy and data.

Some value it until they hit XXXXXXXXX amount of extra cost. Some only value it until they hit XXXX amount of extra cost.

Most probably only value it as much as they're forced to.

[takeda]

> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers.

because everyone knows that it is better to not make no money at all, than just a slightly less than normal because your ads are not targeted.

> 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

Sure, and it is their absolute right to do so, but other people finally have some control over their data, I especially like the fact that finally user can also remove/change the data about them.

[solomatov]

>And this is exactly what GDPR does, you then have an option to opt-in.

I mostly like GDPR. Ability to opt-in and being of charge of your data, i.e. removing it from a service if you want to, and the right to export and move it to another service are great and long due.

What I don't like is that it's a principle based regulation and thus it can be applied arbitrarily and selectively.