[HN Gopher] Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft ...
___________________________________________________________________
Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail
data rules
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 287 points
Date : 2022-05-29 14:08 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| alaricus wrote:
| You needed a study for that?
| [deleted]
| de6u99er wrote:
| Time for the FTC to act and split ip those larg enterprises.
| blocked_again wrote:
| No wonder newspapers are going bankrupt.
|
| Summarised such a complex topic in 12 words.
|
| And I can't even summarise my function refactoring changes in
| less than 20 words.
| mc4ndr3 wrote:
| Marketing is easy. Tech is difficult. Politics often feels
| impossible.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| In what way is tech difficult?
| notriddle wrote:
| How is this even a question?
|
| If you want E2E encryption, you sacrifice good full-text
| search, because you have to build the index on a computer
| that has access to the plaintext, which means doing it on an
| endpoint. It's not as nice as doing it on the server.
|
| If you want to hide metadata, the state of the art is onion
| routing, and that adds a lot of latency. The only other way
| that's even been attempted is Enclave computing, which
| basically just moves the trust from the service operator to
| the enclave vendor. Enclave computing is better than nothing,
| but it belongs in a defense-in-depth approach, not a privacy
| strategy in itself.
|
| And if you want to avoid fingerprinting, you lose responsive
| design. Those two things are just directly in conflict here.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| I'd say it's probably the single most important question.
|
| Engineering is about trade-offs; understanding which trade-
| offs are acceptable means understanding what it is you're
| trying to solve; then assessing whether the problem is
| being looked at from the correct point-of-view (and for
| that matter whether it's even a technical one).
|
| For example: Journalists within hostile nations are risking
| their lives every day. Because of this, they're keen on
| keeping their communication private and away from prying
| eyes.
|
| So far, the compromises largely involve zero-days and
| social engineering. The former is really due to the shaky
| foundation of software today. Every single best practice I
| see is just awful. Whereas social engineering is an on-
| going problem and is a policy/procedural/cultural problem,
| not a technical one. The union of bad software and tolerant
| social protocols make privacy difficult.
|
| Going back to your objection: For use cases where your life
| is on the line, is a few seconds or even minutes of latency
| really a problem? Extend the question, for cases where it's
| not life-threatening but life-altering. What trade-offs are
| most users willing to make then?
|
| If you're not willing to make any trade-offs no matter
| what, then it's difficult or even impossible; and also a
| sign of a poor engineering process.
| feanaro wrote:
| > If you want E2E encryption, you sacrifice good full-text
| search, because you have to build the index on a computer
| that has access to the plaintext, which means doing it on
| an endpoint. It's not as nice as doing it on the server.
|
| I'd argue it's better than on the server. Bring me back
| local computing, please. It's more private, more performant
| and more energy efficient. The attempt to centralize
| computing into central server nodes is not reasonable.
| bsedlm wrote:
| in a collective way
|
| i.e. it's 'easy' for a individual (even a smallish similar
| group). But in society-scale? difficult.
| prophesi wrote:
| I would say that's backwards. Sure, politics is slow, but
| we've seen it succeed exceptionally with aerospace safety
| (meaning planes built to protocol and maintained to prevent
| crashes, not TSA security theater) which is an insanely
| impressive global feat.
|
| Tech has the most impact on user privacy, but there's no
| financial incentive to uphold privacy and so the slow
| political stick is required.
|
| Meanwhile users can do their best installing ad blockers,
| navigate the snake-oil fields of VPN vendors, estrange
| themselves by quitting social media, set a different search
| engine on all their devices (which probably still use
| Google/Microsoft), maybe look into TOR and Whonix, ensure
| they use email masks and unique usernames for every
| service, buy Twilio numbers for account sign-ups, get their
| contacts to use E2E-encrypted messengers and PGP, get a
| dumbphone that doesn't have GPS enabled at all times, a
| laptop with camera/mic killswitches. It's not clear which
| of these steps are excessive or impractical for the layman,
| aside from ad/tracker blockers.
|
| So the tooling to uphold user privacy is there, but it's
| nuts to think the solution is for everyone to adopt better
| privacy-preserving habits rather than slowly killing the
| business model of the personalized ad industry. A great
| byproduct of this is that governments will see less
| surveillance tech vendors to buy from.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| > it's nuts to think the solution is for everyone to
| adopt better privacy-preserving habits rather than slowly
| killing the business model of the personalized ad
| industry. A great byproduct of this is that governments
| will see less surveillance tech vendors to buy from.
|
| Right to the heart. The personalized ad industry has
| exacerbated the issues of privacy, because it's in their
| interest to do so.
|
| Having enforceable ground rules in place, in the form of
| laws, will be difficult because of the money involved;
| and also the sizeable number of software engineers
| feeling like they're above the politics.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Is that really about tech?
|
| I remember when both Intel's CPU ID and Microsoft's system
| updates (because it sent your info to their systems) caused
| an uproar.
|
| Now we don't blink when talking about telemetry.
| seydor wrote:
| But privacy regulation practically gave them their monopolies
| jeltz wrote:
| How? Their monopolies pre-date privacy regulation with actual
| teeth.
| Cypher wrote:
| Real question is how do we get through post modernism.... I think
| part of the healing process is going to be accountability
| guerrilla wrote:
| What is this comment supposed to mean? Postmodernism is a
| (nonsensical, imo) philosophical program. Do you mean
| postmodernity instead? In what sense?
| pessimizer wrote:
| The children of Glenn Beck use language in a strange way.
| gerash wrote:
| GDPR and privacy laws so far:
|
| _intentions_ : Holy! _effects_ : annoyed consumers, legal maze
| for smaller companies, more job opportunities for lawyers
| guerrilla wrote:
| You forgot the other effect: privacy and control of our data.
| scarface74 wrote:
| We have more privacy because of GDPR?
| stakkur wrote:
| Still amazed daily at how many people eagerly line up to work at
| Facebook and Google, two companies engaged in mass fuckery with
| long-term harm to the entire population.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Having worked at one of those, I can give you some insight.
|
| ... They think exactly the opposite. Google even has an
| estimate of how many lives their services save per year on
| average.
|
| Privacy concerns become extremely secondary when you're
| stranded in the woods and all rescuers have on your location is
| the last time your GPS-equipped smartphone pinged. Googlers
| think of themselves as working on systems like that.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| There's going to be a point where choosing to work at Google in
| 2020+ is going to be a black mark on your entire career. Nobody
| has the excuse of claiming they still don't know what's going
| on. If you work there, you chose to put profit over society.
| And at least in my hopes and dreams, someday that will cost you
| a job.
| edgyquant wrote:
| This is ridiculous. Working at one of the most cutting edge
| companies solving problems at global scale will not be a
| black mark on your career.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Google is neither cutting edge nor solving problems at
| global scale. They are an adtech company that produces ho-
| hum messaging apps that abuses human rights as defined by
| the United Nations as their primary business model.
|
| Choosing to work there today means choosing to hurt society
| for personal gain, full stop.
| otachack wrote:
| Ostracizing friends that work in these big companies is
| no simple task. And I wouldn't exactly put all the blame
| on them when society and capitalism has built the
| platform for these companies to succeed.
|
| I would accept friends and acquaintances recognizing
| their participation, as well as my own as a user of some
| products, and observe plus work together to figure a way
| out of this mess (regulations, break up of big tech?)
|
| One also must recognize the philanthropic arms of these
| companies. They may be some attempt to balance the shit
| they're doing.
| tester756 wrote:
| >nor solving problems at global scale.
|
| if they don't, then who does?
| skinnymuch wrote:
| What amazing companies are most people working at that don't
| exploit their workers or society? Almost every one puts
| profit over society to some significant degree. We live in a
| hyper capitalist society. Being on the side of this hyper
| capitalist society as the majority of people are, is the
| problem.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You're amazed that people willingly work at companies where
| they can get paid more than 90% of American straight out of
| college?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| one of those two did not start that way
| bbarnett wrote:
| Neither did.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| you mean when I toured the new Facebook campus in
| California, with a data science group from Berkeley, and
| the Facebook guide stood on the stage and showed us on a
| thirty foot screen, that any one of us can make a map-
| reduce job in a certain format, Facebook will sell us info
| on any way to slice the hundreds of social tags and
| categories they had mined.. that was perfectly OK?
|
| I think the example the guide gave was "bowlers in the
| upper midwest" .. it was made clear that we could make a
| job submisison and be sold data on those people. Someone
| asked if law enforcement was a customer and the answer way
| "yes we do business with all branches of law enforcement".
| throwaway6093 wrote:
| They don't sell the data, they sell targeted ads.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Both of these companies improve the lives of billions of
| people. You are acting biased if you purposefully ignore that.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Do you have some source to corroborate that Google and
| Facebook have a net positive effect on the lives of billions
| of people? Making false assumptions is also a way of acting
| biased.
| charcircuit wrote:
| No, and I never said net positive, although I do believe
| that it is one. The negatives are inherit to anything where
| people can interact with each other, things like using up
| your time or things like bullying.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| So, no sources then. Just making assumptions about most
| of the global human population. Nothing biased about
| that.
| charcircuit wrote:
| You don't have a source for your claim either. I'm at
| least saying that you should recognize how Google
| provides you plenty of free tools like search, docs,
| sheets, present, maps, email, etc and entertainment like
| YouTube. Facebook allows you to connect with your
| friends, talk to people about your interests, a
| marketplace, entertainment from photos, videos, streams.
| Meta also offers Insta for sharing photos or stories and
| they are investing heavily into XR.
|
| These companies do a lot and I do not think you should
| trivialize all that they have done by saying that they've
| done something bad in the past and not even say what they
| have done. Have you considered the people who want to
| work their want to actually improve people's lives
| working on these different projects. Have you considered
| that large compensation can make people ignore issues.
| Have you considered that people are just interested in
| working on the stuff that's available there.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I will respond anyway I guess.
|
| All those things you mentioned are great, sure. But to my
| mind, something can be useful, fun, loved, enjoyed while
| actively making your life worse. The obvious example
| being addictive drugs.
|
| My smartphone, for example, has definitely made a lot if
| things more convenient. It use it all the time, for all
| sorts of useful things. Marvelously useful piece of
| technology, the smartphone. Has it improved my life? I'm
| honestly not sure, but my gut reaction is no, because
| it's ruined my already limited ability to focus(I have
| ADHD). It actually makes me far _more_ productive having
| my phone turned off, despite how useful I seem to think
| it is.
|
| My point is that something can be useful and do all sorts
| of things for you, but that can still be true while it's
| actively harmful to you. And you might not even be
| conscious of this about yourself, let alone most of the
| global population.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I haven't made any claims. I merely asked if you could
| back up yours.
| cycomanic wrote:
| > You don't have a source for your claim either. I'm at
| least saying that you should recognize how Google
| provides you plenty of free tools like search, docs,
| sheets, present, maps, email, etc and entertainment like
| YouTube.
|
| I would argue none of these are free, because they
| use/sell your data. If it wasn't so google could not
| exist.
|
| > Facebook allows you to connect with your friends, talk
| to people about your interests, a marketplace,
| entertainment from photos, videos, streams. Meta also
| offers Insta for sharing photos or stories and they are
| investing heavily
|
| For facebook and instagram there are at least studies
| which have shown the harm they are doing to teenagers and
| children, so there is at least some established facts
| that show the bad influence (lets not even get into the
| political bits).
|
| > These companies do a lot and I do not think you should
| trivialize all that they have done by saying that they've
| done something bad in the past and not even say what they
| have done.
|
| That's a slippery slope though, at some point you can
| justify working for anyone because you don't want to
| consider their actions of the past to judge them. What
| about continued action though, e.g. meta burying their
| own studies on their affect on the mental health of
| teenage girls just to continue making their profits. At
| some point someone has to take responsibility to continue
| working for them (and some people are even actively
| involved in these decisions).
| scarface74 wrote:
| Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing
| police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for
| decades.
|
| Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices
| in the hands of people who could never afford the
| alternative and YouTube has allowed anyone to publish
| video.
|
| I myself find Google's products second rate and I prefer
| business models where I give the company money and they
| give me stuff. But I realize that a $1200 iPhone Pro Max is
| an indulgence that many walking around with a $35
| unsubsidized phone can't afford.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Sure, it's helped people spread some information. It's
| also helped people massively disseminate misinformation
| though. What I asked for was some corroboration that
| there is a net positive.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Without Android, would WebOS and other mobile OSes never
| have come out? Do the people using $35 phones care it's
| Android vs what ever other OSes they'd have if it never
| existed?
|
| There were video sites besides YouTube. YouTube cornered
| the market. That doesn't make them special. All the
| examples are one brand cornering a market without having
| done any exceptional innovation that would be incredibly
| missed without them. Cornering markets is almost never a
| net positive for people. I should probably say it never
| is.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Palm had a decade before Android to spread. Android
| spread because Google made it open source, had the
| resources to develop and market it.
|
| WebOS was also much slower than Android at the time.
|
| YouTube costs billions a year. Few other companies could
| operate at that scale.
| pessimizer wrote:
| WebOS was superior in every way to Android at the time.
| Since, Android has stolen its UI (and the guy who
| designed it, I think.)
| scarface74 wrote:
| WebOS with its web based operating system was much more
| sluggish and had a worse ecosystem.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If these are the best examples, that's not good.
|
| > Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing
| police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored
| for decades.
|
| Facebook didn't _allow_ that, they enabled it, as well as
| many other places. In fact, if it 's on Facebook, I can't
| see it. _Smartphones in general_ created the glut of
| police misconduct videos, because everyone started
| carrying video cameras 24 /7.
|
| > Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing
| devices in the hands of people who could never afford the
| alternative
|
| I do not believe this is true. I don't think they put
| computing devices into anyone's hands, and that there are
| also cheap alternatives. Android and ChromeOS crowd out
| (real) FOSS alternatives, and iirc ChromeOS _started_ by
| crowding out Linux on the trendy tiny laptops that were
| being marketed in the mid /early-oughts.
|
| Having a monopoly on the low-end market isn't charity
| work.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So how many of those "other places" would have gotten the
| viewership?
|
| As far as Android vs the alternatives, Linux was no more
| ready for the phone than it was ready for "the year of
| the Linux desktop" to happen.
|
| The Linux desktops that it crowded out, didn't offer the
| backend server components that make ChromeOS desirable to
| the target audience.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Hey everyone! Stop supporting these corporations. Our money and
| our labor is what allows these corporations to abuse us.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Companies lobbying to change laws in their favor? Well I never!
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| I couldnt believe it either... they wouldnt ...
| [deleted]
| onphonenow wrote:
| The one thing, if you actually start delivering privacy the FTC /
| Department of Justice / Democrats are going to be coming for you.
|
| Apple has started using it's market power to cut off some of the
| bad behavior of others at the knees. The DOJ is going after them
| HARD - it's kind of amazing.
|
| Totally fraud scam calls = ignored.
|
| Apple doing something with market power to block tracking etc -
| CRIME (!!)
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| Apple has a massive hardware moat that will take even secondary
| players a decade to break into. Every action they take that
| effects the industry should be taken critically, even if at the
| surface it appears to be a net positive.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes because the largest Android manufacturer - Samsung -
| doesn't have any hardware manufacturing expertise.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| The DOJ is investigating anti-trust violations, which are
| arguably unrelated to Apple offering more privacy for
| consumers.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Of all the areas of "consumer harm" online my point is for
| some reason THIS issue with Apple is the key issue they are
| going after. My guess is this is actually a "business harm"
| case - ie, scum bags like Match / Facebook with disrupted
| businesses now doing some kind of alliance to stir the pot
| and get action (the law is for the rich not the poor).
|
| This is after Apple showed up the DOJ with app store rules
| that frankly should apply everywhere (ease of cancelation /
| clear subscription terms) as well as tracking rules, payment
| method rule and login rules that allow for lots more actual
| privacy and more.
|
| Of the entire internet, with its endless horrors beyond
| Apple's control, the DOJ has decided to go after a small
| green patch that users trust. This is more an indictment of
| the DOJ than anything. Apple's phone market share is small,
| but the trust / spending on apple are crazy because it's one
| of the few places online that doesn't just screw you over.
|
| And hey, I've tried to report online fraud issues for
| businesses I worked with - it's a total joke. The DOJ gives
| two craps for even totally obvious scams.
|
| Then all the scam calls
| spideymans wrote:
| Match Group has mentioned in their earnings how Apple's
| restrictive polices are harming their earnings by making it
| easy for consumers to cancel subscriptions.
|
| Facebook has been screaming bloody murder over Apple's
| regulations making it difficult for them to monetize user
| fare.
|
| These companies are not your friends, and don't for a
| second believe that their push for more open regulations
| has anything to do with user "freedom". These companies are
| only concerned about apple limiting their freedoms to prey
| on users.
|
| > Of the entire internet, with its endless horrors beyond
| Apple's control, the DOJ has decided to go after a small
| green patch that users trust. This is more an indictment of
| the DOJ than anything. Apple's phone market share is small,
| but the trust / spending on apple are crazy because it's
| one of the few places online that doesn't just screw you
| over.
|
| The fact that the most valuable consumers willingly lock
| themselves behind this walled garden, when there were and
| are plenty of open alternatives is a pretty glaring
| indictment of the state of the tech industry. Unfortunately
| predatory and user-hostile companies are the norm in our
| industry, and consumers have adjusted their spending habits
| accordingly.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Yeah.
|
| Match used the love letter scammers to turn non-
| subscribers into subscribers. What they did was block the
| scammers from messaging paid accounts, but kept them on
| platform to generate likes and messages to nonpaid
| accounts even though they had been flagged as scammers.
| The free users had to upgrade to see the messages from
| these scammers. So it was very intentional.
|
| Match did something like 500,000 subscriptions from users
| within 24 hours of a user receiving a message from a
| scammer. Even better, if match DID delete the scammers
| profile, the user would pay to upgrade only to be told
| profile was unavailable, but no refunds were available.
|
| I loved the "free subscription" match offered - 6 months
| free! The fine print was that you had to have a fully
| public profile with a primary photo approved by match,
| had to upload that photo in seven days, had to message 5
| users per month and could only get through the claim
| process in a 7 day window out of the 180 day free trial!
| So yeah, another ridiculous scam
|
| I could go on and on. The "consumer harm" by forcing
| match to play by Apple's rules is really "big business
| harm". And the folks on apple can afford to go elsewhere,
| these are not poor folks starving. Who has the time for
| the scams online - I got tired of spending time dealing
| with them (2 experiences I went to the mat on with plenty
| of resources). When I deleted an app recently on my
| iPhone apple REMINDED me to consider deleting a related
| subscription! That really does not happen in normal DoJ
| internet land.
|
| The irony of the DoJ claims that Apple is the big bad
| consumer harm player on the internet (which is PACKED
| with love letter, phishing, sex-storation and more scams
| most enabled and many easy preventable if companies
| wanted to) is kind of comical.
| go_to_moon wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
| yalogin wrote:
| Can you tell what you mean by DoJ going after apple?
| onphonenow wrote:
| Apple uses its market power to enforce rules not in effect in
| the broader internet in their little world. That is
| everything from clear disclosures of subscription terms, easy
| cancellation of apps, and lots more.
|
| Other businesses absolutely hate this (ignoring the fact that
| they themselves poisoned the well outside of apple with
| endless scummy behaviors). So they are trying to stop apple
| from being able to do this. Ie, they want to be able to get
| payment flows and stuff off apple.
|
| Apple's behavior per the DoJ is supposedly causing "consumer
| harm" - but the reality is DOJ takes a totally blind eye on
| consumer harm unless that harm also much more directly hits
| the bottom line of other billion dollar businesses with much
| worse behavior (ie, online dating folks / gaming folks etc).
| Then it's all hands on deck.
|
| What's left is basically folks online doing things like scam
| baiting to even start to hit actual horribly destructive
| fraud rings online. And they barely make an impact as this is
| really the territory the govt should be active in.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| They don't care about Apple's app store policies.
|
| The DoJ is pissed because Apple wouldn't cripple iMessage
| and on-device encryption for them. The iCloud 'hole' isn't
| enough.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes and this is the same government that HN users are
| cheerleading to protect their privacy. I am much more
| concerned about government overreach than any private
| company.
| mttddd wrote:
| privacy and security is a pendulum, it swung hard to security
| post 9/11 and is swinging hard towards privacy currently. Id be
| surprised if we ever actually reach a happy middle ground but I
| am sure at some point we will see things swing back towards
| security
|
| and to clarify when I say security there is of course the
| national security apparatus angle but also things like spam,
| fraud, cyber security, crime etc. All of these will happen and
| as governments grapple with addressing them unfortunately the
| easy button tends to negatively impact privacy versus things
| like providing better funding/training for law enforcement and
| regulatory bodies
| schleck8 wrote:
| akira2501 wrote:
| Is there a demonstrated correlation between any of these facts?
|
| That you take reasonable care of your customers privacy does
| not entitle you to turn around and exercise monopolized control
| over that market, your competitors, or the consumers.
|
| A straight A student doesn't get to break the law on the
| weekend just because he gets good grades.
| onphonenow wrote:
| What's interesting is how you and others have basically given
| up on any arguments around USER (not business) harm.
|
| When looking at the many many thousands of businesses online
| and their behavior - you have decided that APPLE (with a much
| smaller market share than google) has come up with an
| approach (protecting users on their app store / platform)
| that is so horrible in its impacts on other businesses that
| the full weight of the govt should be brought to bear to tell
| them how to run their business.
|
| This is the SAME govt by the way that absolutely screws folks
| over with its OWN billing process at the IRS where 90% of
| calls get an immediate disconnect, mail will sit unopened for
| 2 years, and millions of docs will be shredded without ever
| being looked at.
|
| What the govt and you fail to understand is that users may
| not see the market power apple wields as a negative. In fact,
| in a world where the user force can basically never stand up
| to big corp voice (of Facebook or Match.com or whomever)
| apple is another big player that can. Is this altruistic? Far
| from it, it's a business play - and one that I'd love to see
| rewarded vs destroyed.
|
| The reality is the DoJ hates apple for many reasons. They
| absolutely shut the DoJ down on a phone unlock case. They
| have pretty clearly created end to end encryption with
| iMessage. So yes, between facebook, match and biden/doj
| political stuff - they are going to be targeted. If you think
| this is a careful result of looking at places of greatest
| user harm and pursuing them, think again.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > have basically given up on any arguments around USER (not
| business) harm.
|
| No, I explicitly mentioned that. Users are obviously harmed
| by lack of competition in pricing and with product release
| schedules and support mechanisms that are designed to
| extract the maximum amount of revenue from them.
|
| It's not as if Apple hasn't been known to engage in
| precisely this behavior with many of their product lines.
|
| > This is the SAME govt by the way
|
| Again, you're making asserts that may be true, but you're
| not reliably connecting them to your overall point. Yes,
| the government itself sometimes gets it wrong, does this
| enjoin them from ever attempting to get it right?
|
| They can only go after Apple, but only once they've fixed
| the IRS phone system?
|
| > may not see the market power apple wields as a negative
|
| I'm sure heroin users don't see the market power that
| heroin dealers hold as a negative, either. This isn't a
| useful measure and it entirely ignores their monopoly
| position in the labor and supply markets as well, which
| have historically been pernicious and poorly publicized but
| real problems that monopolies present.
|
| > Is this altruistic? Far from it, it's a business play -
| and one that I'd love to see rewarded vs destroyed.
|
| Just because half your publicly traded business seems to
| comport to some imagined idealism does not excuse you from
| following the letter of the law in any other domain. Al
| Capone used to run soup kitchens with free food, and it
| worked for a time, but it ultimately didn't save him
| either.
|
| So, it's great that they get many things right, but it's
| also great the FTC is on their back ensuring that they get
| the other things right and aren't abusing their monopoly
| position as well. I fail to see how we are deprived as
| citizens by any part of this process.
|
| > If you think this is a careful result of looking at
| places of greatest user harm and pursuing them, think
| again.
|
| I don't think you've been paying attention to the the FTC,
| staff changes, or the politics surrounding it for the past
| 2 years, knowledge of which really undercuts the government
| conspiracy narrative you're attempting to peddle here.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Kind of the playbook for every company, do something before the
| government does it for you.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Does anyone know why I can't find the English version of this[1]
| Wikipedia page? Seems relevant.
|
| [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bummer
| treve wrote:
| It doesn't exist in English Wikipedia. If you find this weird,
| my guess is this acronym must have gotten more (mainstream?)
| attention in Germany (despite being in English).
|
| I've never heard of it and I don't think it's common where I am
| (Canada). Sometimes people coin terms and they get picked up in
| some places, but not others.
|
| When I lived in Germany and the Netherlands, it was often
| surprising to me which foreign terms/concepts/artists get
| elevated to mainstream relevance. There's a lot of imported
| culture from English speaking countries, but it's through a
| specific filter.
|
| Here's an English source from the article you shared though:
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/27/jaron-lan...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/27/jaron-lan...
| pvg wrote:
| Because it mostly looks like book promo rather than something
| that needs a separate Wikipedia page. It's not a widely used
| term and should likely be tossed from German wikipedia as well.
| It would make sense in a page about the book or the author.
| Bud wrote:
| Yet another article where Apple gets recklessly tossed in and
| combined with the real bad actors in this field, even though the
| article then fails to cite even a single breach or privacy issue
| or anti-privacy stance taken by Apple. Worse, the article
| contains this complete lie:
|
| "All of the companies cited by The Markup - Amazon, Apple,
| Google, Meta, and Microsoft - have dominant or emerging online ad
| businesses, which rely heavily on data collection."
|
| Nope. Apple does not have an "dominant or emerging online ad
| business". Apple has no ad business at all, let alone one that
| "relies heavily on data collection".
|
| Is it too much to ask to have some professional editors vetting
| these articles before publishing?
| passivate wrote:
| Also, FWIW Apple is no longer part of this lobbying group. And
| I'm no fan of Apple - they're a greedy anti-repair company.
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/07/apple-leaves-priv...
|
| But even otherwise, the links between the companies and
| legislation are weak to begin with (IMO). Its a lot of lazy
| connect-the-dots type reasoning that turns "may be" "could be"
| "seems like" into "must be" and "is".
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Apple has no ad business at all..._
|
| https://searchads.apple.com/
|
| Understanding the ways this is different from, say, Google Ads,
| AdRoll, or TowerData, is nuance beyond most journalists.
|
| Not that it's hard to research. Consider:
|
| _Apple Search Ads doesn't buy or share users' personal
| information with other companies. We don't track people by
| linking user or device data collected from Apple apps with user
| or device data collected from third parties for advertising
| targeting or measurement. And we don't share user or device
| data with data brokers._ -- https://searchads.apple.com/privacy
|
| Pro-tip to journos: the story is in what comes immediately
| after _"which rely heavily on data collection"_.
|
| Data is collected. Then where does it go?
| cycomanic wrote:
| So that text doesn't say they are not using the data they
| collected for advertising targeting or measurement. They
| simply say they don't link the data with data collected from
| third parties for advertising. They are the only ad provider
| on iOS are they not? So the argument is, because they have a
| monopoly on their platform and don't share with anyone else
| they are vastly different? Or am I misunderstanding
| something?
| Terretta wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something.
| Definitely seem to be missing something. I didn't ask
| what's being done with the data. I asked where it goes.
|
| Do you think there's equivalence between selling user data
| to a marketplace of 4,700 third parties, and an internal
| machine-learning-sized A/B test?
|
| https://themarkup.org/ask-the-markup/2021/09/02/what-does-
| it...
|
| Or put another way:
|
| > _So the argument is, because they ... don 't share with
| anyone else they are vastly different?_
|
| Yes.
| kache_ wrote:
| Data regulation laws: introducing engineering constraints that
| only the big 5 have the engineering army to design & deal with :)
| cycomanic wrote:
| This is backward. You don't need an engineering army to _not_
| collect private data. You do need an engineering army to
| collect private data and use it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| No you just need an army of lawyers. Just like you need them
| to interpret the 11 chapter 99 section GDPR.
| marban wrote:
| Original Markup report:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31528823
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| scarface74 wrote:
| I agree with BigTech completely. Dealing with different laws in
| each state would be a nightmare for any company.
|
| If there were one federal set of guidelines it would be better.
|
| But then again, the GDPR made a shit show of the web and made it
| less usable with cookie banners on every page.
| g_p wrote:
| GDPR doesn't mandate cookie banners - that was actual other
| separate legislation (ePrivacy Directive). It provided a
| renewed focus and made more companies sit up and take note.
|
| Sites aren't required to have banners - the intention of the
| legislation was to encourage and nudge companies towards more
| straightforward business models, based around what users
| reasonably expect etc. You only need banners and consent where
| cookies are used for purposes the user didn't request (adding
| an item to a shopping basket doesn't require consent, but
| profiling a user and sharing that with third parties for
| retargeting isn't something reasonably expected, so it would
| require consent and disclosures of the companies involved).
| scarface74 wrote:
| The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How did that
| work out for the end user?
| tjoff wrote:
| Pretty great actually. The good it has done for end users
| are immeasurable at the same time as the cost for shady
| companies is increasing.
|
| Going slow though, but that is hardly surprising (and the
| opposite would be alarming)
| scarface74 wrote:
| _How_ has it helped users? Two of the largest tech
| companies are adTech, tracking ads are still everywhere.
| All we got are cookie banners that are worse than the
| ads. Ads are much easier to block.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It helped me by allowing me to demand that facebook and
| google delete the shadow browsing history they kept on
| me, and disallowing them from continuing to collect data.
| tjoff wrote:
| You imagined google going bankrupt as a result of GDPR?
|
| It has given users tons of options regarding exporting
| and deleting data. Changed the defaults and limits use of
| personal data. These are all huge and goes way beyond
| internet.
|
| Users now have an ability to more easily see how their
| data is being abused and which companies are too greedy
| to not ruin their own websites.
|
| For the first time in a very long time there is hope.
|
| Then again, we have people who still believe GDPR is
| about banners, we have long ways to go but it is the
| first step in the right direction in forever and it is a
| huge step at that, we have barely started reacting to it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How many users are actually saying "we don't want to use
| Google after we see all of the disclosures"? This "first
| step" has gone on for 8 years.
| tjoff wrote:
| A lot. And google is being fined for it as well.
| Awareness is key and that takes time to gain attraction.
|
| But no, I don't have any numbers for it. You'd might
| consider having an open mind though. I'm for one is done
| with this "discussion".
| scarface74 wrote:
| And I'm sure you have numbers showing Google's decline in
| usage since the GDPR or showing a shift from ad supported
| websites.
|
| I'm very willing to have an open mind when given facts
| and statistics with citations.
| ushakov wrote:
| in Germany, Ecosia is a pretty popular choice
|
| it's built-in on Safari actually
| scarface74 wrote:
| Ecosia's market share is a little over 1% in Germany.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1150709/ecosia-
| search-en...
|
| In contrast, the rest of us got a worse user experience.
| ushakov wrote:
| shit show of the web are internet companies that show ads and
| track users across the web
| scarface74 wrote:
| Did the legislation make the consumer experience better or
| worse? Did it accomplish its goals?
| heretogetout wrote:
| Probably better. A lot of sites chose to become worse,
| although they were already secretly/silently terrible.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Can you name any popular sites that became better? Did it
| help the user experience for any popular sites or did it
| make it worse?
| heretogetout wrote:
| I don't know of specific sites that became better. Your
| premise is flawed, though, as the sites only became
| visibly worse because the site owners chose to do that.
| And now more people know how bad the web has become.
| ushakov wrote:
| arguably better
|
| the users are now more aware of unethical business models
| and have more control over which third-parties can access
| data
| IMTDb wrote:
| Considerably worse
|
| Consumer end up clicking accept all on every single
| webpage, after the equivalent of an attention grabbing
| popup, something we were happy to see disappear when
| organisations ( and _not governments_ ) decided to pretty
| much ban them from browser.
|
| What _has_ improve my privacy: -
| Disabling third party cookies via a browser setting (than
| you Mozilla and Apple). I can understand why websites
| that I visit might put cookies on my computer. I am even
| Ok with them tracking me when I visit their websites, but
| I do not feel why the need to track me outside of their
| websites - Deprecating some api used for
| fingerprinting (thank you Mozilla and Apple). These API
| were not designed for those reasons, but where abused.
| What works here is technical expertise to maintain their
| general usefulness, while preventing the abuse. The
| various laws had close to 0 impact. - Apple
| private relay (thank you Apple), preventing even more
| tracking, again through *technical* means.
|
| Things that do not help : - Clicking a
| button on every single website I visit. I would love to
| be able to put a setting in my browser to tell what I
| feel is OK with regard to cookies, and have my browser
| handle those since cookies are managed by my browser
| anyway. But the law won't allow me to do that since
| consent must be "specific", meaning that I need to
| express my consent for every single domain I visit. Note
| that this makes private browsing almost unusable since I
| have to repeat "consent" again fr websites that I already
| visit quite often. This has *reduced* my global privacy.
| - Asking a website about my data. I did once for the lolz
| and never did it again. In my company, we get an average
| of one query every 3 month for thousands of daily users.
| But it justified some lawyer salary while we did a
| "project" out of it. So I guess it payed some suits guy a
| new BMW.
|
| As a citizen on the web, GDPR et al. have made my life
| worse, while Mozilla and Apple made mine better. As a
| professional, these law have directed a small part of my
| revenue to lawyers, but haven't changed a thing about
| what we were doing and how we were conduction our
| business.
|
| There are better use of taxpayer money.
| stiray wrote:
| Yes but you must understand that most of users are
| incapable to do what you did.
|
| GDPR wasn't written for technical users but for all
| citizens of EU. By having banner they have at least
| possibility to reject tracking.
|
| Also there was a DNT header initiative. Simple and
| elegant, serer would get the header from browser and
| would stop tracking you. You wouldnt even see it. Did it
| work?
| scarface74 wrote:
| GDPR wasn't written _by_ technical users. Users are
| perfectly capable of installing ad blockers on their
| computers and Safari for iOS.
|
| There are no good methods to block cookie banners.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| There's also no good way to block data collection
| inherent in the service you are using. You can't use
| ublock to stop Google from saving everything you search
| for, or your location data. GDPR does allow you to stop
| that.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Did the cookie banner or the GDPR prevent that?
|
| It seems to me that Apple - a private company - had a lot
| more of a measurable effect than the government. Major
| companies like Facebook have explicitly said that Apple's
| new policy had a material effect on their earnings.
| [deleted]
| IMTDb wrote:
| > Yes but you must understand that most of users are
| incapable to do what you did.
|
| Third party browser disabling is now enabled by default
| in firefox and safari, so no operation needed. API used
| for fingerprinting alternations require no operation on
| my side. The only thing that require activation is
| private relay, which needs to be done once and is _much
| simpler_ than all the legislation around GDPR, cookies
| etc.
|
| > Also there was a DNT header initiative. Did it work?
|
| It didn't because honouring it was a server side choice.
| Just like honouring the EU cookie law is a server side
| choice and doesn't really work either. If you don't want
| a cookie to be used to track you: don't send it.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| GDPR didn't make the shit show. Tech companies that rely on
| breaking the GDPR caused the shit show by choosing to simply
| ask for consent to violate it instead of changing their
| practices.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So in other words the government law was ineffective at
| accomplishing its goals -- all 11 chapters and 99 sections?
|
| https://gdpr-info.eu/
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| They don't have to have banners, they only have to have them if
| they do user-hostile tracking.
|
| Unfortunately most sites have scummy business models and this
| just exposes them.
|
| It opened a market for untargeted ads again (based on the
| general interest of site visitors) which would never have
| happened if it was left to the market.
|
| Google is actively working against these untargeted ads because
| targeting is their #1 market advantage. Nobody has a bigger
| tracking network than them.
|
| But especially in Europe other players are taking off with them
| now.
| gerash wrote:
| None-sense! If you have to blame 99% of the website
| (clothing, media, restaurants, ...) as being malicious in
| order to defend a piece of legislation then you're obviously
| wrong.
|
| I don't care about the intentions of the law. I care about
| the effects. No one is trying to update/fix the law within a
| feedback loop. It's a one time process.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| You mean all websites that incorporate Google and Facebook
| trackers allowing those companies to know everything we
| buy, every piece of text we read, who we talk to, etc ...
|
| I don't find it obviously wrong to have a problem with
| this.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So how many users have said "okay I'm not going to use this
| website because I know how they use my data based on the
| cookie banner?"
|
| How many of these companies in Europe have even a fifth of
| Google's ad revenue?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| So the point of cookie banners is malicious compliance.
| Annoying banners get people opposed to EU privacy laws, which
| is the true goal of the banners. When Facebook blocked news in
| Australia over a legal dispute, they "accidentally" blocked all
| sorts of other content. But it wasn't a mistake, it was
| intended to sabotage the privacy regulations' popularity, so
| people like you would call for it's removal. Craigslist didn't
| actually need to close personals when FOSTA was passed, but by
| doing so, they created a plausible claim for harm caused by a
| law that regulated them.
|
| When companies overreact to legislation in ways that negatively
| impact society, stop blaming the law, because that's entirely
| what the tech companies are trying to do. They're trying to
| turn you against the very lawmakers who are protecting you from
| them.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So you mean the government passed a law without thinking
| through the unintended consequences...shocking!
|
| And you're claiming that every website that chose to use
| cookie banners was doing so for political reasons? Do you
| think that is the simplest explanation - and not that a bunch
| of lawmakers were incompetent?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's not that I think laws were passed incompetently, but
| that they were watered down to get them passed. We should
| be hauling executives of Google and Facebook to jail, but
| we're still at the "make everyone notify users they're
| being abused" level.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Either way you cut, the legislation was ineffective and
| are you also going to haul in every mom and pop WordPress
| owner? Every blog site?
|
| You really want the government policing web content?
| stiray wrote:
| Sorry but you are wrong. GDPR doesnt mandate any cookie
| banners.
|
| You might be interested in this:
|
| https://noyb.eu/en/more-cookie-banners-go-second-wave-compla...
|
| Actually NOYB has also provided website owners how to make
| cookie banners GDPR compliant:
|
| https://wecomply.noyb.eu/static/app/pdf/OneTrustGuide.0afba7...
| scarface74 wrote:
| So now _270_ websites just have more compliant irritating
| banners...
| stiray wrote:
| Well, they don't need to. They just need to turn off the
| tracking of users and they don't need any banners.
|
| The problem is not in GDPR. The problem is in the website
| owners. They are the one who are trolling you with banners.
| scarface74 wrote:
| They weren't trolling me with the banners before the law.
| Now they are still tracking users and the user experience
| is worse.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Weird to blame regulation for how private entities act.
| Entities whose focus and goal are maximizing profits. I
| hope I don't need to give citations for how the basics of
| our societies economic system works. Though I'm sure we
| can find "experts" at hundreds of think tanks simping for
| big business disagreeing.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Legislation _forced_ private entities to act that way.
| They weren't forced to make any substantial changes.
| indymike wrote:
| Privacy regulations can make it very difficult for competitors to
| gain traction for incumbents, so there is active lobbying to get
| regulatory barriers to competition in play. At the same time, far
| too much money is being made to allow laws and regulations to
| kill revenues... so it gets complicated. The easy way is to just
| say you are all for privacy, and then oppose it at every turn.
|
| Another issue is this: breaking some of these privacy laws both
| in force and proposed, is really quite easy to do - as easy as a
| misconfigured logger or a developer including the wrong field in
| a query.
| thfuran wrote:
| Plenty of existing laws take intent into consideration so its
| not unreasonable to suppose that a log that happens to
| accidentally contain some information that it shouldn't before
| being destroyed and the bug patched would be quite legally
| distinct from a log containing the same information but has a
| business unit processing and profiting from it.
| sneak wrote:
| ...and the national military surveillance operationalizing
| it.
|
| This isn't just about revenue. People are assassinated by the
| US government without trial based on metadata.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| How much did Google get smacked for for collecting
| unencrypted packet data while they were building out their
| SSID-based localization improvements?
| scarface74 wrote:
| So what are the chances that a judge cares about "intent" on
| site that doesn't conform to their belief system?
| thfuran wrote:
| You're asking what the odds are that a judge will refrain
| from flagrant malfeasance. I'd imagine it's pretty high,
| though surely not 100%.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You trust the legal system far more than I do.
| thfuran wrote:
| So, what, we shouldn't attempt to have privacy
| protections because some corrupt judge might fine a
| company that shouldn't have been fined?
| scarface74 wrote:
| We shouldn't give the government more power for them to
| abuse...period.
| thfuran wrote:
| Should we close down all air traffic control to make sure
| no air traffic controller ever screws up?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Can air traffic controllers take away my freedom and my
| rights?
| thfuran wrote:
| I don't understand. You want rights but don't want the
| government to have any power to enforce them?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Better defacto, unelected governments in the form of huge
| companies with armies of lobbyists and forced arbitration
| agreements.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Because of how both the electoral college works and
| gerrymandering, the elected officials don't represent the
| majority.
|
| Besides, private companies don't have the force of law to
| force people to do anything.
|
| Giving the government more power over your freedom is
| never the answer.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > Besides, private companies don't have the force of law
| to force people to do anything.
|
| As more and more consolidation happens I'm not so sure
| this is still true. If all grocery stores become zero-
| human Amazon markets and their AI decides your long
| forgotten, hobby EC2 instance is past due then can you
| buy food?
|
| Rent an apartment?
|
| Fly on a plane?
|
| Elections in the US need reformed, no doubt. And
| governments have a monopoly on legal violence. The answer
| isn't to keep handing the keys to the government over to
| whomever/whatever has the most money.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Only 5% of all IT spend is on any cloud provider:
|
| https://accelerationeconomy.com/cloud/amazon-shocker-ceo-
| jas...
|
| The grocery store market is definitely not a monopoly
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/818602/online-and-
| offlin...
|
| And Whole Foods makes up less than 2%
|
| There is definitely not a "tech monopoly" on renting an
| apartment. On the other hand, the government can and does
| take away peoples property through both imminent domain
| and civil forfeiture.
|
| The government already controls who can fly and who can't
| via "no fly lists"
|
| https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/grounded-
| life-...
|
| So no, I have no desire to give government _more_ power.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| It is not unreasonable, I agree. However, the privacy laws
| passed by government are mostly intended to play performative
| and punitive role, and actual interest of the people in
| balancing their privacy and usability concerns are tertiary
| at best. The politicians pass those laws to look good on one
| side, and to attack the companies on the other. User concerns
| are mostly ignored.
| thfuran wrote:
| >However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly
| intended to play performative and punitive role
|
| Yeah, that seems to pretty well describe most all
| legislature these days.
| falcolas wrote:
| Reality is, many such consumer protection laws include revenue
| minimums to avoid this very problem. See, as an example, the
| proposed law in CA allowing parents to sue social media
| companies.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why should your privacy depend on the revenue of the company?
| falcolas wrote:
| It mitigates the fear about its primary use being
| regulatory capture. Which is also quite important.
| izacus wrote:
| Obviously when the little car mechanic at the end of the
| street sells your private information to data aggregators
| for ad spam, it's all fine.
|
| /s
| t-3 wrote:
| How are the loopholes gonna be exploited if there aren't
| any loopholes? C'mon, get with the program.
| pkos98 wrote:
| Because the insights from the data do depend on the scale
| of the dataset. Thats why the number of users is taken into
| account in data privacy laws such as GDPR (No. of users
| correlates with revenue).
| [deleted]
| cycomanic wrote:
| >Another issue is this: breaking some of these privacy laws
| both in force and proposed, is really quite easy to do - as
| easy as a misconfigured logger or a developer including the
| wrong field in a query.
|
| So if I drive accidentally over the speed limit I should not
| get a ticket? That's a weird argument isn't it? Moreover, we
| are talking about companies with billions of revenue, they can
| afford to pay people to make sure things work. If you are
| worried about large incumbents using the laws as barriers (a
| weird argument, should we not protect people first, not
| companies?), just lobby for fines to be a fraction of revenue.
|
| Moreover, the behavior of the big companies in Europe shows
| that they have and continue to intentionally skirt and break
| the rules as much as possible until they get hit with fines. I
| really have very little empathy with Google, Meta et al.
| ouid wrote:
| You should not get a ticket for accidentally driving over the
| speed limit (unless you are driving over every plausible
| speed limit), but a corporation should. This is not an
| arbitrary distinction, and equivocating as you have hurts
| your argument.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| > 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.
| ghayes wrote:
| 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.
| spicybright wrote:
| It's like saying "Regulations against dumping garbage into
| oceans can make it very competitors to gain traction for
| incumbents."
| hhw wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nojs wrote:
| 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.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| > 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.
| 8note wrote:
| There's a nit in there:
|
| Privacy regulations can make it very difficult to for
| competitors to start up with abusing information.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's the social media equivalent of "guns don't kill people,
| people do".
|
| Nobody is unseating social incumbents. The industry is out of
| the growth phase and needs a firmer hand.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-29 23:01 UTC)