Not nearly as liberal as the US though. Afaik you are very much limited where you are allowed to have ammunition loaded into the rifle, concealed carry isn't a thing at all and the police can ban you from owning guns
And how do you address the massive injustice in wealth and opportunity distribution already present because of centuries of capital and power sharing the same bed? I'd be all for your proposal if it included a way to nationalise all capital above a certain threshold, bring everyone to that threshold and then distribute the rest based on merit. But I don't think that is possible. But your proposal assumes not just a just world, but that the world already has been just for 100s of years
Sure, but the EU is not an insignificant market and to be honest, this could have a similar effect to anti trust laws. Have European companies build up competition against the US behemoths.
China is an unfree hell hole that I don't want to live in (social score) but you can't argue that from the position of developing a domestic industry their selective blocking/worsening of services allowed the ecosystem to grow intstead of sharecropping on Google's "platform"
> This may be an edgy and rebellious sentiment that makes me a radical anti-privacy activist, but unless you're storing levels of information on me that are similar to facebook/google/etc., I do not give a damn whether you're soft-deleting or hard-deleting my IP address and my user account. If your web app is just a web app, and not one component of a vast surveillance octopus which puts tentacles on almost every website using social media buttons and GA.js, I don't think it matters in the slightest.
> It feels like all these tiny companies, one-man shops, and early-stage startups are going to be collateral damage to a regulation designed to stop facebook and google from knowing a horrific amount about everyone. In fact, it feels like a regulatory moat that will do very little to impede any big tech company while forcing me to do twice as much work for any side project I try to develop.
If you don't store PII, you don't have to do any work. Done. If you need to have PII for your webapp to function, you barely have to do any work besides giving the that care people their rights
> There's so much smugness about the GDPR being a "good reflecting moment", etc. which makes me think that people who support the GDPR believe that there's no way detractors could disagree with it in good faith or for good reasons.
I think it's mainly a difference in viewpoint: this is my data for me. Not yours. GDPR makes it easier for me to enforce that. From my perspective I don't care about you violating my rights "in good faith", just like most people don't cares if you trespass on my property and steal something "in good faith".
> Honestly though, I would _love_ to live in a world where you could walk into my home and install your 'adtreckr' eye tracking cameras on my TV. What you're describing is "trust", and I think the amount of it that each person has (for people in general, but also for companies) is a big influence in how they view GDPR (and other regulations that some might argue are unnecessary). Obviously, we're very far away from that world, so this isn't consent for you to come waltzing into my home in the near future. :)
Anarchy is always ruined by all those people! (I'm a big fan of trust, and not a big fan of Hayek,but Hayek had an insight when he talked about the micro and the macro cosma. People are to diverse that we can rely on "trust" to solve things, we need agreed on official rules)
> In my eyes, the satirical representation of what's happening here (from a consumer's point of view) is me placing an order for your awesome new eye tracking cameras, looking forward to the delivery and installation, and then seeing delays and delays as you repeatedly come back with, "well, are you sure you want this? are you sure I can enter your home? are you sure I can touch your TV? are you sure I can modify your TV?" I signed up, I paid for it, I told you I want it, just do whatever you need to do to give me it.
No. If you opt into buying my camera, since it is explicitly necessary to do all of that stuff, the consent is given as part of the buying contract. I just need to clearly state and explain that. If you had to gain access Facebook or instapaper via a huge opt in order form (let's say a pop-up detailing exactly what happens to your data), then it is equivalent...and that is exactly what GDPR requires
> From a business POV, I already treat user data with utmost regard, and my users know that. Similarly, I trust that the companies I willingly give my data to do the same. There are probably some bad actors in the mix, but I doubt they're going to bother with compliance anyway. Having to go out of my way to prove that data trust is there to a third party completely uninvolved with the contract I have with my users, and to spend hours and hours implementing new workflows and pipelines for out of scope functionality that needs to be maintained indefinitely -- this is not good for a business. It's bad for small businesses because it sucks up time, money, and other resources, and it's bad for big businesses because it opens up such a huge area for litigating non-issues. It might have some value to users, as I said elsewhere, but it's a heavy-handed regulation that is too overreaching in its implementation, in my personal opinion.
If you already do everything that is commonsense data protection, which is the bulk of what is required by GDPR, then all you have to do is documen that. If you cannot guarantee that the data is not shared, then the third party isn't uninvolved in the contract you do with your users.
Honestly, think of my data as something I own, like my house or my car, and GDPR becomes easy. Think of it as something you "create" by tracking me on your site, and your point of view becomes easier. I like my world better
I agree, we should also get rid of copyright and property laws in the name of not "stifling innovation". It is absolutely ridiculous that I can't just walk into a peoples homes and install my 'adtreckr' eye tracking cameras on their TVs, even though that has the potential to revolutionise the amount of engagement and make sure that they only receive the most engaging, most relevant ads for their tastes./s
Less satirically, you are free to innovate by coming up with new tech, then selling to people who care enough to deal with regulations. The 'stifling innovation' copout is so utterly overused by people who want to ignore negative externalities like pollution or the surveillance state we are building up. I am starting to think of it as a type of rent seeking: "I am currently in the privileged situation of having the technology and network effect necessary to exploit this unguarded treasure of X without dealing with the fallout. Please don't pass any regulation requiring me to actually pay my dues"
Welcome to the real world. If your little hobby project leaks the personal information of a real person, then they don't care how much of an unimportant side project it was to you.
For purely personal use "hey guys, this is just a hobby use at your own risk" you won't get hit with gdpr
Imagine if you were building cars for a hobby then selling them. Would you complain about all of those onerous regulations like seatbelts, crunch zones etc when all zou really want to do is tinker with some cool engine tech?
You don't really though? Unless I missed the bit on how you want to get payed. All I see is 'building a great open source infrastructure', which while I applaud and is noble, is not widely accepted to pay rent so far
1. I'm talking about equity, not options. Aka, part of the company is yours. With voting rights, or in the case of e.g. Google, at least worth cash
2. In a startup, it is a lottery ticket. If the company is public, you can include it in compensation as there is a market value
If the company actually gives you a meaning number of shares, they can expect you to care about the company beyond the paycheck... because it's your company. If they are Google and the stock is a way to chain you via vesting...at least it's golden chains
>You would do much better job by first learning what the world outside your country has to say about those simple ideas of yours.
1. This sounds a bit condescending
2. E.g.: Switzerland just voted to keep theirs. Seems to be seen as desriable
3. OPs problem wasn't that they are an outlet for a political faction, but that they struggle to finance themselves and are almost forced to pander to an audience to attract advertisement
4. Living in a country where the state financed media is heavily status quo biased (germany) but also produces and finances some of the most scathing criticisms of the same (Boehmerman), I feel we need to be wary of false equivalences. State financed media isn't a perfect panacea to political pandering, but it's definitely better than the cesspool that comes from having only private media sources (or depending on the 'good will' of billionaires)
> If I didn't know any better, I'd say it sounds like you're searching for people with passion so you can get them to work unpaid overtime for you. I don't know why else it would matter.
Ding ding ding. Also in this category
* We still shitcorp want the company to be a family
* Believing in our vision
* Want our employees to be caring about the customer
* Have fun and pizza in the office
Unless
a) there are hard cash+ benefits
b) there is equity
c) there exists a formal incentive structure reaffirming the officially started desires
It's all consciously or subconsciously a way to sucker people in and exploit them without pay. And some people go in knowing that and not caring they get exploited (nurses, some people better than me I know), some don't notice (mostly junior devs/consultants). But for both exploited they get
I would like to add another one: some people are worker bees, some people are inherently lazy, but both are not assholes and will try to not get you into shit if they think of you as a human being.
If you can get them to care about you or the thing you are trying to do, the worker bees will have to be stopped from burning out and the lazy guys will find ways to get the job done without spending too much effort.
How to so that is difficultut, but there's one thing that doesn't work: putting the screws
> Labor unions depend on laws that inhibit the contract freedom of employers for the above-market wages they fetch their members.
> They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population.
> For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict.
Imagine this: the labourers instead form a company, each holding a number of shares, taking what you call market wages for whatever they are doing. They create a new position inside this company, let's call it union ltd., to negotiate a contract between the university and union ltd. Union for the services the members provide. Any surplus the union negotiates is distributed via dividends on the shares.
Is this now differen to what you describe? Or different to any outsourcing company? Unions are nothing more, nothing less than a negotiation,i.e. business tactic, just like we use outsourcing as a business tactic
> > without worrying about money fleeing the jurisdiction and we'd be able to fund things like ...
> North Korea is horrible to its people so it has to lock them in. You're effectively wanting the same thing but for everyone.
It would be nice if people paid taxes for the infrastructure that enables businesses worldwide,but that would turn us into north Korea? What? North Korea isn't horrible because of taxes friend (in fact, most of the most horrible places on earth have an official tax of zero, you just need to bribe everyone)
What flawed logic enables this?
>America has important things to attract value producers so that they'll tolerate paying the tax because they're still better off than trying to earn money in some worse country despite lower taxes. It's up to the government to squeeze as much out of them as it can without losing them.
Ah, randian ideas of value producers and moochers, instead of participants in a society and economy. I see
IANAL but I think it's more complicated than that...IIRC if you want to do.business in the EU, you need to comply. Not sure if.you can argue that HN does 'business' though