Das sehen Gerichte und Gesetzgeber anders. Muss man wissen, sonst kann man nicht verstehen, was rechtlich und politisch vorgeht.
Außerdem wird man dem so leicht nicht entkommen können. Andere Anbieter würden natürlich genauso verpflichtet sein, genauso gute Uploadfilter einzusetzen.
KI-gestützte Massenüberwachung, durchgeführt von Meta. Ok.
That’s disingenuous. We have a lot of regulation that improves people’s lives but isn’t well-regarded due to politicial campaigns, or in the case of GDPR, malicious compliance
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
Ok, so I actually previously read too little of the discussion to participate competently.
Thank you. Better late than never.
But you need to be more careful. They said that the GDPR increases happiness because it allegedly does certain things. IE the happiness effect depends on what people believe about it. At least, I do not see how people would be made happier by stopping international data transfers in a way unknown to them.
Obviously, the GDPR does not literally prevent data from being shared around the world, so I'm not really sure what to make of the claim otherwise.
it’s totally possible to run GDPR-compliant site without a cookie banner,
Cookie banners have more to do with the ePrivacy directive, though the GDPR would require something like it.
In any case, the reason why sites have cookie banners is so that they can serve personalized ads. These ads pay better. There are probably sites that could not be run economically without cookie banners. The more profitable sites are not going to leave the extra cash on the table. It is not malicious compliance.
I think it's an ape that's a furry. The guy below doesn't have a tail.
I wonder if the world would be any different if Hilbert had never lived.
But it isn't Wednesday yet?
How it is viewed is not the point. The question is whether it helps people.
The issue was whether the GDPR makes people happy. That depends on people's perception of the GDPR, rather than it's actual effects.
Whether it helps people is also a good question. It certainly costs a lot of money. I don't think people find that helpful. It can help a little with privacy, but that could be had easier, better, and cheaper. I'm sure it helps with PR, but how many people actually benefit from that? I'm really skeptical.
The DSA regulates dark patterns
Thanks for backing me up on this. Not sure why you get upvoted for it and I downvoted.
I wonder how many people see it that way. The GDPR never claims to be a privacy regulation. It can be used for the purpose but only in a limited way. It has nothing to say about psychological manipulation.
In the fediverse, data is shared by instances around the world. Yes, that's probably illegal. Knowing that doesn't make me happy. It rather seems incredibly pointless.
How so? IE what happiness generating regulations does he want to sacrifice for growth?
Related how? Looks like you wouldn't be allowed to use such a model for other than research purposes in the EU.
Wer sich für ein sinnvolles Urheberrecht starkmacht, legt sich mit den Presseverlagen an. Ich habe überhaupt keine Hoffnung mehr, dass da auf Jahre hinaus irgendetwas besser werden kann.
Es gibt die Erkenntnis, dass da irgendwie was falsch läuft. Die europäische Wirtschaft hat einen empfindlichen Nachteil. Aber Politik und Gesellschaft galoppieren trotzdem in die falsche Richtung. Man sieht gerade beim Thema KI, wie das läuft.
Oh nein! Jetzt darf man mit Birkis KI trainieren! Die klauen die Arbeit vom armen Bernard Arnault!