[Symbiote]

It seems very early to be making changes like this.

Google must really benefit somehow from the change, otherwise they could leave it until much later in the year, and see what (if any) changes Parliament makes to privacy and data protection law in the UK.

[johannes1234321]

In what way is it early? UK left the European Union late last year. Since then there only is a temporary agreement in place, with a deadline later this year. Given the seemingly strength of the Prime Minister (see recent cabinet reshuffling) and his unwillingness to extend companies doing business in Britain have to prepare.

[mlaretallack]

February 1st was officially the "first day" out.

[dijit]

It's a bit of a red-herring because the only thing that changed on Febuary 1st was that we're no longer having representation in the EU parliament, until the end of the year we're still following all the same laws and regulations.

And that assumes that the transition period is not extended. (Which it doesn't seem likely to be, frankly).

[shadowgovt]

GDPR compliance is expensive; every account not in the regime saves Google costs.

[martius]

In which way?

[jethro_tell]

In no longer being able to use a customer's data as their own.

[zweep]

I can tell you that two FAANGs implement GDPR compliance for everyone because they didn’t want to risk getting a user’s EU status wrong.

[heavenlyblue]

Also probably having two different codebases to handle data compliance is probably not too easy to support.

[Zenst]

That certainly has been how I've seen it play out. Which makes sense as easier to have one rule to fit all and if that rule is based upon the worst case of every countries data laws then you are somewhat more future proofed. After all, not many countries do laws than are demanding their citizens have less privacy - at least in the public sector remit of laws.

[playpause]

Which two, and do you have a source?

[bonzini]

If I'd have to guess, the two that do less or no advertising and thus benefit less from your data...

(EDIT: That would indeed be Apple and Netflix, as hinted by another comment).

[bilbo0s]

Pardon my cynicism if I think it's likely Apple and Netflix.

And they probably do that for everyone only because it doesn't eat into the main profit generators in their business models. Not many marketers paying Netflix to advertise their new natural soap line to targeted prospects I'd imagine.

[zweep]

One is Apple or Netflix and the other isn’t. I don’t feel comfortable sharing more specificity than that.

[luckydata]

Linkedin for sure, I used to work there so I can vouch for it.

[Zhenya]

Linkedin isn't faang.

[SahAssar]

That's not a FAANG though.

[antonyh]

FAANG is just a buzzword acronym, a hook to pull in investors.

LinkedIn is Microsoft, which should also be included given it's scale. It should be FAMANG.