Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AnthonyMouse 2412 days ago
> Could you explain why the restriction over selling user data would be a violation of first amendment rights?

Start with the premise that you're passing a law against people telling other people anything they know about you (especially if they would otherwise be able to without compensation), then add in the "money is speech" thing, which is existing precedent whether you like it or not.

> If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth so they can potentially influence a decision made on the topic of restricting them, solve any problems in the first place? It seems like a stretch to suggest that privacy advocacy groups need money from tech giants to support themselves.

Privacy advocacy groups don't just have binary existence where either they exist or they don't. Every dollar is more advocacy.

And you can't have it both ways. Either the amount they receive is insignificant and consequently shouldn't affect their overall policy positions or it is significant and losing it would be a meaningful hit.
1 comments
pvg 2412 days ago
Start with the premise [...]

This sounds extremely vague and contrived - something something, the money is speech thing, 1A issue. We regulate all sorts of sales, data collection practices, etc, all the time. Can you find a concrete example, especially in a non-political, plain business-to-consumer context where such regulation has received 1A scrutiny? Even a description by Google or FB or their surrogates of such a potential problem will do.

Every dollar is more advocacy.

The question is advocacy for what. To square this circle you have to argue that the interests of Google and FB are aligned with the privacy interests of individual users - those are the interests such groups tend to claim to represent. This seems implied in your line of argument as I read it and, to me at least, appears glaringly inaccurate.

link