The funny thing is that Europeans will just be blocked from accessing AI applications.
And EU citizens will complain why they don't have access to some AI products.
And EU citizens will complain why they don't have access to some AI products.
Deploying AI with the same "move fast and break things" mentality is fundamentally dangerous, and this industry needs strict regulation like this.
Why does the government need to decide everything?
Following your logic, there should be no regulation in the tobacco and pharma industries either. Surely consumers can decide on their own what they want to put in their bodies. Advertisements don't lie, right?
There some linguists and philosophers who even think the Human mind is not capable of grasping absolute "truth".
Yes. I believe customers should be allowed to buy what ever they want if they are adults.
If consumers who are human can't decide what's good for them. How will regulators who are also human decide what's good for them?
If someone wants to smoke cigarettes they should do it provided it doesn't interfere directly with other people's lives.
Because it's their job to ensure the well-being of their citizens. This is not about ability; _some_ people certainly have the ability and self-control to make decisions that positively benefit their lives. But when companies rely on psychological manipulation to push their addicting products that harm not only individuals, but society as a whole, we can't rely on everyone to resist the machinations of billion-dollar companies and make the right decision. And individual decisions don't impact the rest of society, as individuals don't have the full picture as governments do.
I'm not saying that governments are benevolent, or should make all decisions for citizens, but when it comes to Big <industry>, it's their responsibility to protect us from corporations. This often doesn't happen as well as it should, as some governments have a symbiotic relationship with corporations (lobbying practices in the US are a clear example of corruption), but I'm still glad that some governments at least try to do the right thing.
> If someone wants to smoke cigarettes they should do it provided it doesn't interfere directly with other people's lives.
Agreed. But would you agree that heavily restricting access to cigarettes with strong regulations and taxation is a good thing for society? Or would you rather go back to the "freedom" consumers had in the 1960s, with the cancer rates that went along with it?
"lol" said the factory, "lmao".
I’ve got loads of power in choosing my own AI girlfriend but relatively little in choosing what AI credit scoring I’m subject to.
On the other hand, if they leave free a market spot as big as the EU, others who comply with the directives will go for it, which may progressively eat the market to the non-EU compliant by the same reasons.
For anyone reading this who gets assigned to work on compliance blocking, please remember at all times that there are quite a few countries in Europe that are not EU members - and often it's because of the EU's heavy handed approach to things, as visible here!
To avoid deploy subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, with the objective, or the effect of materially distorting the behavior of a person.
And so on.
I'm sure you would've said the same thing when the Commissars banned and controlled computer access in the USSR and Cuba, etc.
This is Google a large corporation with lots of resources.
Smaller firms will find it more convenient just block access to European citizens instead of keeping up with the legal gymnastics.
In the mean time the costs of excluding the EU have been going down as RoW grows economically, whilst the fines generated by being in the market keep going up. And the perception has become in the US that GDPR wasn't a one-off motivated by genuinely different beliefs about privacy in Europe, it was just a politically and financially motivated grab at US firms from a government that has proven itself uninterested in enabling a competitive tech landscape, meaning engaging in compliance activities just invites yet more onerous regulation.
This is then doubled up by a second problem. The EU is an ideology and HN is full of "EU citizens" who deny this basic problem, but a lot of people have direct experience now of working on regulatory compliance for the EU and have come away baffled by rules that appear literally impossible to follow no matter what you do. Even the most obvious good faith attempts will be mysteriously revealed years later to have been illegal from the start, amongst a chorus of cheers from those who claimed that everyone should have always known that. Facebook being told "advertising is bad, don't do it" so they added an option to pay and get rid of ads, then being told "no that's illegal too" even as many German news companies do the exact same thing is a prototypical example of this. The search engine right to be forgotten that was unexpectedly discovered by judges in law that made no mention of it is another example, that one killed off any ability to compete with Google/Bing in the EU by creating huge compliance costs on day 1 of running any new search engine.
In highly competitive and fast moving markets executives in the US face a choice: allocate people to compliance activities to enable launches in the EU and quite possibly face crippling fines anyway, or allocate those same people to core tech R&D that enables you to keep your existing market position and grow faster everywhere else. The EU Commission works on the assumption that it's big enough that companies will tolerate any level of regulatory overhead in order to retain market access, but increasingly what we're seeing now is that this assumption is false, in the same way that it was false for China also in the past.
> controllers should consider also offering a further alternative, free of charge, without behavioural advertising, e.g. with a form of advertising involving the processing of less (or no) personal data.
GDPR says: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/
> When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
It's not some hidden gotcha that they didn't know about. It's the basic right to use all services, without loss of functionality, without giving away your data which is not strictly required for the functionality. Ads or no ads doesn't matter.
> It's the basic right to use all services, without loss of functionality, without giving away your data which is not strictly required for the functionality.
No such "basic right" exists in any treaty that I'm aware of and it's clearly not about that anyway, because Facebook and other domestic services started offering that exact possibility, yet the EU still isn't satisfied. The idea there's some specific principle at play here is just propaganda by the Commission.
What they appear to be demanding (today) is that all services are free and funded by ads that are randomly chosen. What moral or legal principle underlies this is quite mysterious, because nobody ever previously claimed it was illegal to show ads for nappies during children's TV programmmes, or ads for video games at the start of action movies. Nor is there any organic demand from voters to be shown worthless random ads for products they have no interest in, especially if the result is that they become commercially unviable to serve (next step by the EU: demand they get services even if companies take a loss on doing so).
European countries have real problems and the people know what they are, just check the EU's own opinion polls. Again and again people say their top concerns are things like the economy, jobs, inflation, immigration. In fact ~nobody in the EU cares about this bizarre jeremiad against tech firms by the Commission, which is why it's impossible to comply with whatever the EU thinks it's asking for. Implement the obvious solution to any new regulation and the interpretation of it immediately changes after it turns out the results wasn't mass behavioral change amongst the population. There's no way to satisfy both the Commission and the actual users or customers because the EU's goals are diametrically opposed to everyone else's. HN posters who have projected all sorts of second-order effects onto this fight to do with long term expectations about EU integration aren't representative of the population, who would much rather the EU get them a job than beat up the companies entertaining them whilst they wait.
The document makes it clear it's about behavioral advertising. It's not the ads that are the problem here, but the targeting which comes from the user data that they have to consent to.
> What they appear to be demanding (today) is that all services are free and funded by ads that are randomly chosen.
That's not even close. You can charge money for services, or you can serve ads at random, or based on the content. You can't base them on the user without consent. I.e. as you mention in the examples, you can advertise games before an action movie, but you can't advertise games to kids and nappies to moms, unless they consent to profiling.
I agree there are weird edge cases, but this isn't it. Just read the actual document. You're there one adding interpretation which isn't there in the act/ruling.
Example: ads based on "content" that are not behaviorally targeted are OK, you say. And what if the content itself is selected based on behavior? Behavior such as, for example, clicking the like button on certain things? Is that behaviorally targeted ads?
It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it. Point is that you have no idea what the correct interpretation is and nor does anyone else, including the EU institutions who are clearly making this up as they go along. What we can be certain of is that whatever tech firms do will be automatically asserted to be the wrong thing, because that way the EU can top up its budget from the pockets of these companies whilst simultaneously claiming to be virtuous.
This path leads to eventual ruin for the EU. The law must be just, it must be clear, and it must be predictable. EU law doesn't come close to meeting this bar and the result will be that the US increasingly just nopes out of there. People in Europe don't want to be excluded so the result will be a wave of petty lawbreaking with VPNs, casual smuggling and so on as people find ways to get access to US tech regardless of local laws.