[Kbelicius]

> There is nothing stupid about the behavior of business owners. When facing a bunch of uncertainty with something that is not critical to their business, the most natural reaction is to simply step away from it and outsource it.

If it is not critical to their business then there is nothing to worry about. Even if a business breaks GDPR they don't automatically get a fine but a warning and instructions on how to comply with it. Following that we can only conclude that destroying their online presence because of GDPR is a stupid move. While there is some uncertainty non of it really touches companies whose main business isn't collecting PII.

> Big corporations have armies of lawyers and can handle with all the requirements. They use that as a barrier against smaller sites who might try to compete with them on specific niches and use it as a protection racket against their own consumers. Thanks to GDPR, Facebook can go around the internet saying "Nice community site you have there, would be a pity if the government did anything to it..."

Can you explain how this scenario is in any way beneficial to big corps? I mean, you are saying that big corps need to hire an army of lawyers, spend resources on catching their competitors breaking the law and then informing them of it so that they could fix the issues. Nothing you wrote here makes sense.

You did not write anything specific about GDPR that favors big corporations. Do you know anything about GDPR so that you can answer that simple question or are you just some libertarian/ancap who rages against regulation without actually knowing anything about it?

[rglullis]

> While there is some uncertainty non of it really touches companies whose main business isn't collecting PII.

You are a real estate management company, and you have a form to collect names and phone numbers, just to call prospects back. Is your main business "collecting PII"? No. Were you affected by GDPR? Yes.

Same thing if you are a restaurant owner with a website that had an OpenTable integration to accept reservations.

> you are saying that big corps need to hire an army of lawyers, spend resources on catching their competitors

Now you are just playing dumb. I am not saying that they need to catch anyone. What I am saying is that they benefit from the uncertainty and complexity from a piece of legislation that could potentially affect smaller business who were not equipped to respond properly.

> are you just some libertarian/ancap who rages against regulation without actually knowing anything about it?

I spent the 6 months before GDPR dealing with the changes that had to be done in an e-commerce startup I was working at the time, and I saw all the questions from vendors and all the people being worried because they simply had no clue what needed to be done to be compliant. But feel free to keep thinking I am just "raging against regulation".

The hilarious thing about the "you don't know what you are talking about" accusation is that it usually comes from people who blindly bought into the idea that GDPR has any tooth into the fight against surveillance. If what I am saying is not enough to convince you of how backwards GDPR is, could I then ask you for any example where GDPR was effective in reducing the amount of unnecessary data collection?

Is Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple tracking you less after GDPR? No, they continue to do the same shit. They are still punching you in the face, the only difference is that now you are being "asked for consent".

[Kbelicius]

> You are a real estate management company, and you have a form to collect names and phone numbers, just to call prospects back. Is your main business "collecting PII"? No. Were you affected by GDPR? Yes.

I give information on what that data will be used for and don't use it for anything else. I don't have to think about GDPR for a second more. What is the problem here?

> Same thing if you are a restaurant owner with a website that had an OpenTable integration to accept reservations.

Is the information provided necessary for service fulfillment and only used for that purpose? What is the problem here?

> What I am saying is that they benefit from the uncertainty and complexity from a piece of legislation that could potentially affect smaller business who were not equipped to respond properly.

Does the complexity of GDPR not cause more trouble to big corps since they themselves are more complex than a small business? With what complexity and uncertainty are my real estate management company and my restaurant hit?

> I spent the 6 months before GDPR dealing with the changes that had to be done in an e-commerce startup I was working at the time, and I saw all the questions from vendors and all the people being worried because they simply had no clue what needed to be done to be compliant. But feel free to keep thinking I am just "raging against regulation".

Then why are you having problems answering a simple question regarding GDPR? You say you have experience with GDPR so use it. What advice did you or your company give to those worried vendors and other people? On what grounds was your answer based? If you can't answer that then you really are just raging against something you don't understand.

> The hilarious thing about the "you don't know what you are talking about" accusation is that it usually comes from people who blindly bought into the idea that GDPR has any tooth into the fight against surveillance. If what I am saying is not enough to convince you of how backwards GDPR is, could I then ask you for any example where GDPR was effective in reducing the amount of unnecessary data collection?

Literally the only thing you said is that big corps have lawyers so regulation isn't fair and we should remove it. You know what also isn't fair? Capitalism. Big corps have more money so we should abolish capitalism. That is your logic and level or argumentation. From now on, if you poses an ounce of intellectual honesty, you should be an anti-capitalist. Or at least explain why capitalism is ok but regulation is not.

> Is Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple tracking you less after GDPR? No, they continue to do the same shit. They are still punching you in the face, the only difference is that now you are being "asked for consent".

Yes they are because I didn't give them my consent.

[rglullis]

> Yes they are because I didn't give them my consent.

Ridiculously naive. Do you have whatsapp installed on your phone? That's all Facebook needs to keep tabs on you and build your profile.

And if you don't? Then you can join my club. I'm pretty sure that Facebook really is missing all 16 of us...

> Or at least explain why capitalism is ok but regulation is not.

First, I am not saying that all regulation is bad. What I am saying is that GDPR is completely and utterly ineffective in what is "meant to do".

Second, it's not about being "anti-capitalist" but "anti-corporativist":

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31764137

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31766144

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641

[Kbelicius]

>What I am saying is that GDPR is completely and utterly ineffective in what is "meant to do".

How,why? I mean, I did ask you multiple times. Seems you don't know anything about GDPR. You even said you had experience with it?

> First, I am not saying that all regulation is bad. What I am saying is that GDPR is completely and utterly ineffective in what is "meant to do".

> Second, it's not about being "anti-capitalist" but "anti-corporativist":

Your only argument so far is that big corps have more money(more lawyers) than other players on the market. How can one be a capitalist and against money(inequality) at the same time?

[rglullis]

> How, why? (The GDPR is not effective)

GDPR stated purpose is to "increase data privacy for EU citizens". It added a bunch of directives that amount to "protocol theater", but did not stop Big Tech from collecting user data at large.

Facebook can only be profitable if they collect and exploit user data. If they are still operating in Europe, it is because they are either (a) operating at a loss or (b) still collecting enough user data.

Google is surely still collecting user data. Want to use Google Assistant? You consented for them to listen to you. Use Gmail? You consented for them to read your messages. In practice, GDPR did not stop the data collection.

Don't use Android and prefer iOS instead? Same thing. Amazon echo at home? SAME THING.

Saying that you have more privacy because now you "give consent" on some websites is a ridiculously naive notion. The only way to have actual privacy would be if the companies were not allowed at all to collect the data in the first place.

> How can one be a capitalist and against money(inequality) at the same time?

I've posted not one, but three links to different comments, all of them explaining the argument. I'll repeat again here: I am not (morally) against the concentration of money, I am against the concentration of power, and there are easier ways to eliminate the concentration of power without removing people's civil rights. In contrast, any attempt to control the concentration of money led to authoritarianism and people losing basic liberties.

[Kbelicius]

I see that you've moved from "GDPR is bad because some have more money than others" argument to "GDPR is bad because some will decide to break the law".

Can you think of any regulation that you are for, against which you can not use those two arguments?

> GDPR stated purpose is to "increase data privacy for EU citizens". It added a bunch of directives that amount to "protocol theater", but did not stop Big Tech from collecting user data at large.

This is what I'm trying to get from you. What specifically makes GDPR just "protocol theater", what changes should be made to make it more than that?

> Saying that you have more privacy because now you "give consent" on some websites is a ridiculously naive notion.

Nobody but you is saying that. I'd say that you have more privacy because you "refuse consent". If websites are not honoring my choice then they are breaking the law. If that makes GDPR bad then, by that logic, all laws and regulations are bad.

> I am not (morally) against the concentration of money, I am against the concentration of power, and there are easier ways to eliminate the concentration of power without removing people's civil rights.

Money is power so saying that you are not against the concentration of money but of power.... makes no sense.

In the third post that you linked you recommend removing civil rights...