nickpp

I agree about the transparency when it comes to a business's activity: its goods and services.

But a business's ownership is about the privacy of its owners/stock holders - which are regular people. Saying their privacy is "morally dubious and self serving" is akin to saying regular people's need for privacy is morally dubious and self serving. Is the old anti-anonymity argument of "if you're all legit, what do you have to hide?!"

There is an argument to be made here though when said owner is another corporate entity - that is not a person so maybe it doesn't deserve any privacy.

I went through such a expropriation a couple years back. All I got was a notification letter and a check for corresponding amount (arguably under market value).

> And for the ones that won't?

Then you confiscate, sure. And show publicly that you offered 10x and were refused. But not confiscation by default, in all cases.

I guess my argument is that if you really want something, you better pay up. Like for anything else, from cars and boats to 10x developers. What if the government could come to you whenever they want and say: I forcefully require your work and talent and I will not pay more than market price for it.

When I set up my LLC I used all available ways to protect my name and address.

No reason really, but I guess growing up hearing my grandparents stories about the communist take-over of our country taught me what happens when you are a target because you are publicly linked to your wealth.

> But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self serving in that case you present.

I wonder: do you hold the same views when it comes to regular people's online privacy?

> because people try to hold the project hostage for ransom

Unions hold countries hostage by closing down rail or airports. Still, a solution that doesn't cost 1 billion dollars per person is always found.

> imagine that you had to negotiate with 10,000 homeowners

Imagine you offer them 2-10x market value. With a confidentiality clause. And the threat of confiscation or project abandonment. I believe an amiable solution would be found in most cases.

It's interesting that the government can't convince owners to sell. I mean - we're talking about politicians. They manage to negotiate everything and compromise even in the middle of wars. See prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine right now. Or Israel and Hamas. Worst enemies and they can still find a compromise.

It can't be just about money - governments successfully negotiate with unions that hold the whole country over a barrel with strikes of essential services.

But eminent domain to build vital infrastructure? No - forced confiscation is the only solution. Strange.

> What does happen is they sell your data to companies

I don't know, more personalized ads?!

> foreign governments

> Take tiktok for example

TikTok's is a foreign government operation.

> steer discussion and politics or sow discourse

I am still waiting for proof they can actually do that. I remember all the scandal around Cambridge Analytica but then nobody said anything anymore when it turned out they weren't able to do what they boasted they could.

Yes, we should be afraid of governments getting our data and using it against us. But they have many other ways of getting the data and they don't exactly obey laws - they are above the law by definition. So I don't see how laws against private companies can help here.

I believe there are European-based low-cost ETFs that closely mirror the US ones. Both from Vanguard (VWCE, VWRA come to mind) and BlackRock (IWDA).

I think we're only worried about our data in the hands of governments. So maybe we should make that illegal - but of course governments would never pass a law like that, against their own interest...

> give us the lifestyle we want

Actually, they do. Companies and their employees all over the world are giving us the products and services we want. In exchange we're freely giving them our money and/or some "data".

When offered the choice, it seems most people would rather pay with their data. We've been told for years now this is not good for us, but I am still waiting to see the downsides - all I get are some personalised ads.

Let me get this straight: you're afraid people would rob/kidnap you or your children using data stored by the Big Tech?!

Any instance when this actually happened? Would't it be easier to just watch your house for a week from a parked car, wireless camera let on some wall?

I wouldn't even consider starting a business in a heavily regulated field. I can (and I did) fight any competitors, no matter how big they are, using my ideas, creativity, network and hard work. It's not easy, but it's doable - there are lots of startups started every day in giant-dominated fields. And you also get lots of help along the way, because it's fun and because there are lot of gains to be had on the tiny chance you make it.

But I can't fight the government. I wouldn't even try. It's an immovable object. There is nothing to win there. It's all dead. Better to just get a cushy job at some gov agency. Just like most of Europe's best and brightest currently do - leading to a continent left behind, while the US high tech (both startups and giants) are soaring.

Are you saying the average american doesn't have a disposable monthly $100? That is demonstrably false - the statistics about current income and life costs paint the opposite picture: not only Americans but average people all over world are wealthier than they've ever been.

There are inequalities, of course, (like Europeans falling behind) but the Americans are doing very well indeed. So please stop with your propaganda.

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/10/americans-have-neve...

Americans have that disposable $100. Now they may very well be deciding to throw it away on cigarettes, alcohol, weed, various entertainment (tv) or all sorts of crap - but that is a whole other discussion altogether.

> significant disposable income

B.S. Last time I checked, accounts at most online brokers were free. And they even allowed purchase of fractional share - so you could start investing with 100 bucks. As long as you do save that $100 and not throw it all away on crap, of course.

> How is discouraging monopolistic practices going to line the pockets

Three easy ways come to mind:

1) Play the stock market using the insider info on decisions and regulations politicians know well in advance.

2) Regulations and laws once enacted have to be implemented. So many compliance chief or consultant positions suddenly opening up at multinational corporations.

3) Cheap populism moves work wonders on economically-ignorant voters. "I smacked Apple/Microsoft/Google" guarantees years of sucking from the public teat

The bitter irony is that the only effective way to deal with monopolies is though free market competition. And regulation is the polar opposite of that: regulation discourages startups and favors the incumbents.

So, yes, heavily regulated markets guarantee less competition which is worse for "us".

Anybody can make money by owning - and we do. It's called investing and it's also how pension funds work.

Tilting the tax code against us is tilting it against the people and for politicians, unchecked bureaucrats with their uncontrollable spending thirst.

> I will never understand why people are out there falling over each other to be the white knight for a company

Because a company is giving us awesome products and services which we willingly spend our hard-earned money for.

It's also creating (well paid) jobs which we can choose to take and platforms where other businesses thrive and build even more jobs.

Finally, as investors, it's allowing us to participate in and benefit from its success.

On the other side we see politicians - bureaucrats that never built anything in their lives. Parasites living off our work. Greedier and greedier every year they forcefully confiscate more and more of our sweat and blood while "giving" us crappier and crappier services in exchange. Finally, when a psychopathic leader inevitably takes over - they literally send us to die in their sick wars or attack others for their enrichment.

Incidentally, Paul's advice is the best advice I heard for maximising your luck surface area. You know that saying: luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

I don't know anybody impoverished from trying to build something. Even if they failed, the lessons they learned and people they met in the process offered plenty of future opportunities.

On the other hand, I know plenty of people unhappy with their lot in life but who didn't try anything to improve it when they could. They like to complain a lot and impose their bitterness and skepticism on the young dreamers.

And our society needs many, many more dreamers. Because when they succeed, as seldom as it happens, we all end up better thanks to them.

Do you have an actual argument or are you here just to call others liars?

Isn't Cannabis now a socially accepted and provided good in much of the Western world?

Which step is:

"Build a search engine so good all nerds on the early Internet abandon AltaVista and switch to it, no marketing required."?

I wonder: what better advice, that optimizes for individual outcomes, would you offer founders-to-be instead?

Are you a lawyer? Are you willing to assume the liability I may incur if I follow your advice? Or are you at least a business owner/manager who's had to deal with this crap?

Or are you in the peanut gallery willing to believe that there is some conspiracy where all websites have suddenly decided to obliterate their user's UX when GDPR appeared just because they are evil?

I live in the EU and I can tell you: ALL banners/popups are obnoxious. They ALL get in my way when I want to do something entirely different. As a (non ad/user-tracking) business I would never afflict them on my users if I had a choice.

The productivity loss here in EU since the GDPR would be staggering - if there was much productivity to begin with, of course.

You are correct: implementing GDPR correctly is much, much harder and more expensive than people realise. Cookie banners are just the tip of the iceberg.

A few things not allowed under GDPR:

1. Analytics

2. Third-party resources like fonts or JS libraries

3. CDNs

4. DDOS protection services

And I am sure I am missing many more. I am not a lawyer, but I worked with a few.

> it's certainly not illogical

Please describe the mechanism then.

> are you sure it wouldn't have existed

I know it ended since I am still friends with the owner: the labor regulations become so onerous he gave up on having a couple overly-enthusiastic pain-in-the-butt kids around to train every year.

> having the government sponsor or subsidise them also makes sense

Of course government intervention begets ever more government intervention - it's the only one that can fix the messes it creates. But I lived under a regime where the government controlled everything - and we were starving.

The government is the most incompetent, slow and corrupt organization built by man. It makes sense, as it has no competition to push it to be otherwise - it's the ultimate monopoly. Boggles the mind that somebody would voluntarily rely on it.

> naive and ignorant people who don't understand

Aren’t you a bit presumptuous? Do you consider yourself as knowing better than them what is best for them? Do you think that you know how to run their life better? Why?

Do you think there are people out there knowing how to run your life better than you? Would you like if they came and took control over your life?

> Better late than never.

Most likely too late as we kept burning fossil fuels too long and we are now facing the danger of civilization-ending climate change. All thanks to doomer propaganda like whatshisface's.

Amazing how powerful fear is - to manipulate and keep people down.

All companies exist just to make a buck. And in the process they serve us with literally every single product and service we are using every second of every day. They play by the rules we put on them, making their life easier or harder, and in the process making our life easier or harder. Like this bad cookie law.

Again: are you a lawyer?! If not, in what quality are you advising businesses how to implement such a dangerous law? Have you seen the magnitude of the potential punishment? Will you cover my fines if you're wrong?