[DANK_YACHT]

> Privacy regulations can make it very difficult for competitors to gain traction for incumbents

This is an oft repeated argument that makes no sense. The point of privacy legislation is not to increase competition. The point is to increase privacy. The government has other legislative tools to increase competition should it wish to do so.

[spicybright]

It's like saying "Regulations against dumping garbage into oceans can make it very competitors to gain traction for incumbents."

[hhw]

I think the point he was trying to make is that big tech can use privacy regulations to keep out new competitors, rather than encourage them, as compliance with privacy regulations can create a higher barrier to entry

[yulaow]

How? You just need to not save user data outside of that strictly required for providing your service and you easily comply even with the most stringent GDPR directives. To be honest caring about privacy lowers a lot your barrier to entry, unless you whole business is based around tracking ads or reselling of data to shady third parties.

[shadowgovt]

Or collecting samples of user-provided data to build machine learning systems, which is how Google bootstrapped its search, spam filter, and voice recognition technologies.

[nojs]

Here’s an example for you: https://www.streetlend.com/

> With sadness, StreetLend was shut down in April 2018, after five years of operation.

> Unfortunately the European Union's new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), introduced on 25th May 2018, creates uncertainty and risk that are impossible to justify for small non-profit websites.

[account42]

That is an example of someone who chose to shut down due to perceived risk. There is no argument on the linked page that that perception of the risk of running a free non-profit website under the GDPR is based in reality. In particular, the does not seem to have been any GDPR enforcement against said site.

It looks more like someone who does not like the GDPR (because it affects them in some other way, because they are mislead, out of principle or who knows what reason) who then chose to sacrifice their pet project to make a statement.

[CharlesW]

> This is an oft repeated argument that makes no sense.

It's so nonsensical that occasionally I wonder if this is an argument made primarily by the incumbents themselves in order to maintain the status quo.

[pessimizer]

> The point of privacy legislation is not to increase competition. The point is to increase privacy.

There is no point without a person to have one. This is your point. It's absolutely impossible to generalize it to everyone who works to pass "privacy" legislation, and simply incorrect. Sometimes you try to pass privacy legislation to reduce privacy. Sometimes you try to pass privacy legislation because you have a product that would sell more if it passed. And yes, sometimes you try to pass privacy legislation because it adds so much red tape that you need a full time employee, a team, or a department to comply with it, and you know potential challengers can't afford that yet.

[ghayes]

Yes, but the side-effects of laws are the direct effects of laws and cannot be simply dismissed. This is the primary concern for any law, that it may impose other costs on society than just its intended consequences.