The business model is fine, the EU and you are choosing to kill it. Not only are people arguing for no tracking they are arguing on forcing other people to live without tracking. So if someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for their personal information they don't even have the choice. Additionally GDPR requires that businesses not restrict their products to only those that are funding it.
The effect of targeted advertising on platforms such as Facebook seems to have had a very negative effect on democracy, for example.
Although, FB in general doesn't seem to help the political discourse, I don't think it's anyone's job to decide what ways of communication and discussion are right for a democracy, because if you control where people can speak and what they can say, it's a short step until you control how they vote.
And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.
The issue I have is the rules in what can be done with that data. Because those rules make it so that the users don't get to decide what they're OK with being done with their data.
If I'm being really honest here, the GDPR seemed pretty well intentioned, IMHO it just went a little far.
Maybe I am missing something. Would you provide examples? I would be very glad to learn if there are edge cases I may be overlooking.
An individual has negligible negotiation power. That's why we use regulations as a form of collective bargaining.
As for explicitly informing the user about what they do with their data, that part I have no quarrel with.
> it's telling the businesses and users how they can sell that data and what they can use it for, so it's not a choice by the user on what they do with their data, and more a collective decision with the government.
That is true, and that should happen in cases where market incentives do not align with social or public interests.
I mean, if I'm being honest my views on government aren't very common, so it'll probably be expedient to agree to disagree. (:
Personal data has many meanings and for some, this data might bring their literal death so of course it's a serious topic. Not common in the last ~30 years of western history, but that's just a tiny slice of time/location so of course it's sensible many of us want to keep personal data, well, personal.
I thought what yout were saying is that we shouldn't want it to be legal because it's illegal and therefore bad.
Also I can still give facebook all my personal data. Simply facebook need to get my consent to distribute and sell it and I will forever have some basic control on what data fecebook has on me. The government has little to do in this.
Also (beware the strawman), as far as I know people cannot sell their own organs in the EU, is this a sign that your body belong to the state or that business models build on harvesting poor people organs are unjust?
> Also I can still give facebook all my personal data. Simply facebook need to get my consent to distribute and sell it and I will forever have some basic control on what data fecebook has on me. The government has little to do in this.
So long as the government doesn't force companies to provide the basic control, that's how it seems like it should work! (:
My understanding is that figuratively speaking that is almost what happened with subprime loans.
Corporations and market can have a lot of power in performing predatory tactics. If drugs were simply legal quite a few business would sustain themselves on other people addictions.
One of the main reason we need regulations is that any sensible and obvious law (like not kidnapping people to harvest their organs) has loopholes (like keeping people poor, ignorant and devoid of mobility (lack of education, criminal convictions etc.)) so that they will agree to sell their organs.
Organ harvesting is a deeply extreme subject and obviously will not happen with or without regulations, but modern free society need are built on the free enterprise (eventually in the public sphere) of individuals and consequently they need to handle when individuals gather too much power and can destabilize societies.
Every free society has this problem (including bitcoin with a 51% attack) and needs to find a solution to both promise rewards for personal enterprise and incentives not to abuse the system (for bitcoin (IIRC) they are respectively money and loss of hardware investment)
> So long as the government doesn't force companies to provide the basic control, that's how it seems like it should work! (:
(interpreting as government should not force companies)
My problem with that is that principles do not help us distinguish fair competition from predatory unethical behavior. In the contest of personal data and privacy that is relevant as we live a completely different universe from just a few years ago.
Gossip is not illegal, but if you were magically able to listen to every conversation in a 10 km radius that would be a problem. Legal and illegal are often linked to how hard it is to do something and the scale at which you can do it.