HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
65% Positive
Analyzed from 1396 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#gdpr#consent#regulation#more#business#models#popups#banners#companies#https
Discussion (61 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I can answer that. A higher regulatory overhead that means less money for R&D and decreased profit margins for companies here in the EU. That's what's going to happen.
Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just that CEOs want that quick buck instead of being responsible and using regulation for their advantage.
nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.
General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.
That is "reductio ad absurdum".
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
quality regulations don't curtail innovation.
I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong.
I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers.
It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.
Thank god Xi Jinpeng has the best interests of Europe at heart...
Re. disclosure: How do they want to do it? It seems to be similar to a “disclosure” used in students’ works: “Source: internet”…
I think enforcing compliance with the law will be rather simple, just like it happened with GDPR, food labeling and many other regulations. But I wonder how will the disclaimers/declarations even be verified? The more I think about it the more I see open sourced (both dataset and weights) models as the only truly verifiable solution. And that makes it less attractive as a business foundation if. So we might end up with state-funded models working in similar fashion to museums it other culture/art institutions ensuring that original material creators are treated fair. But that will bring whole other set of challenges...
I remember European efforts to create search engine, digital library. And a lot of EU-funded projects in Horizon 2000 are useless, just an expensive bureaucracy…
GDPR and cookie consent bars are pain in the a* and ux/ui failures.
What I mean - intention is good, realisation is often bad. (But I don’t think that rest of world would be better btw :)
/end-of-rant
EU will mandate labels on authentic-looking AI content starting August 2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132341
As models become more capable, this could have serious economic consequences. :(
From my reading, it seems that while cookie permissions first became an explicit EU law concept in a 2009 amendment to ePrivacy Directive (not GDPR), companies were able to get away with passive consent banners (not popups).
It was GDPR's new definition of consent which then retroactively strengthened the existing ePrivacy Directive cookie consent to explicitly require user action to give consent (i.e. popups, banners large enough to push users to interact with them, etc.).
Unless your point is that GDPR has nothing to do with popups because the companies could just not use non-strictly-necessary cookies and therefore not need a popup, but I think that's a stretch to jump from there to "nothing to do with GDPR".
https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
https://wp-gdpr.eu/gdpr-cookie-consent-2026/
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/01/consent-and-cooki...
"i.e." doing a lot of work there.
GDPR doesn't require pop-ups or banners for providing consent. It mentions "ticking a box when visiting an internet website" as an example implementation. But it's just there as an example.
https://gdpr.eu/Recital-32-Conditions-for-consent/
the mechanism for gathering consent is an implementation detail left to the site to handle because GDPR applies to far more than websites. i've had to provide consent for things completely unrelated to websites.
you could add a line of text saying "please write us a letter with the following information (user account, blah, blah) if you are willing to provide consent for optional tracking like blah blah" and this is perfectly in line with GDPR.
sure, it's more expensive and you'll get fewer people who you can track. but make no mistake, sites make a decision and choose pop-ups/banners as their implementation for gathering consent because they don't want to lose out. they're happy inflicting pop-ups/banners on their users instead so they can keep their precious tracking cookies going.
i.e. GDPR doesn't require pop-ups/banners, sites choose pop-ups/banners.
"Not a requirement under GDPR", yes, but certainly not "nothing to do with GDPR". It directly has to do with GDPR, in conjunction with business' decisions and how to comply with the law.
And of course, we can then argue our faces off about what's good and necessary in the world, in businesses and data protection, but saying it has nothing to do with it is just wrong.
My personal GDPR hot take: it's actually been 2 steps forward and 1 super clumsy super loud and obnoxious step back.
I agree with the spirit of comment above. The common sense part of it (if there is one) might just end up eclipsed by wonky UX absurdity. Someone will find a way to paint this picture that our EU reality is a Kafkaesque dystopia.