SpecialistK (u/SpecialistK)

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

SpecialistK · 6 hours ago

I'm not in the EU (as I have already stated that in this chain.)

And again, my whole hypothesis was that a well-intentioned regulation can still fall short or have loopholes which need addressing. An in-depth discussion on the merits of the GDPR was a little beyond my plans to be honest.

Anyways, fun chat!

SpecialistK · 3 hours ago

My apologies, it wasn't in this thread that I mentioned my location. That's on me.

SpecialistK commented on Making games in Go: 3 months without LLMs vs. 3 days with LLMs marianogappa.github.io/so... · Posted by u/maloga

fluoridation · 5 hours ago

Was Concord made the way it was because of data? I got the impression that the designers were chasing misguided trends with the art direction, and on top of that the game part was just mediocre.

SpecialistK · 4 hours ago

I can't say for sure (never played it or followed it much, because it's not my type of game) but the impression I had is that it was a cookie-cutter attempt to be just another live service online shooter in the vein of Valorant, Overwatch, Apex Legends, etc etc. And people saw no need to play this new one when those games already exist.

Compare that to Helldivers 2 (online-only live service game, same platforms and publisher) which had a lot of personality (the heavy Starship Troopers movie vibe) and some unique gameplay elements like the strategems.

SpecialistK commented on Making games in Go: 3 months without LLMs vs. 3 days with LLMs marianogappa.github.io/so... · Posted by u/maloga

MangoToupe · 6 hours ago

Isn't Concord massively unpopular? I'd think that's a terrible example

Edit: yup, it shut down nearly a year ago

SpecialistK · 5 hours ago

I think it was a sarcastic example - in other words, all the data and metrics and trend-chasing in the world is not a replacement for human vision, creativity, and risk-taking.

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

Pooge · 17 hours ago

> Cookie law banners are almost never full-screen. They do often impede clicks on a website ("why can't I click? Oh, I'm zoomed in and the cookie banner is below the viewport now") but very few are as outright obtrusive as a screen-dimming "you have an ad blocker!" or "please join our mailing list!" prompts. At least in my experience.

At work I—unfortunately—cannot install uBlock Origin on some devices and the few times I need to use that device I have the opposite of your experience. Do you live in the EU?

I understand your point but GDPR was not here to ban data harvesting. If anything, I'd call cookie banners a win because it exposes bad websites for what they really are: pieces of garbage riddled with dark patterns trying to force you to consent to give your data by profiting off of your lack of attention. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the "Reject optional cookies" option is mandated by law. That's why GDPR was successful within the scope it was given.

Thinking it was either pop-up banners or nothing is a false dichotomy.

SpecialistK · 6 hours ago

I'm not in the EU (as I have already stated that in this chain.)

And again, my whole hypothesis was that a well-intentioned regulation can still fall short or have loopholes which need addressing. An in-depth discussion on the merits of the GDPR was a little beyond my plans to be honest.

Anyways, fun chat!

SpecialistK commented on Why the Internet Is Turning to Shit currentaffairs.org/news/w... · Posted by u/Improvement

grafmax · 16 hours ago

The owner has the privilege of risking capital. The worker has no choice but to work for basic necessities - because they have no capital. The worst case for an owner is that they declare bankruptcy - and are forced to join the working class to make ends meet. It’s hardly an exchange among equals.

SpecialistK · 6 hours ago

That's a big (and almost offensive) assumption. Who is to say that the worker does not have their own alternative sources of capital, such as a farm, inheritance, creative outputs, own company, etc?

It's also an assumption that the worst case for an owner is to declare bankruptcy. Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be financially responsible for losses and debts; face civil or criminal charges for their role in the downfall; and reputational damage which prevents them from meaningful employment that someone else would get.

It's far from ideal, sure. But it also isn't as black-and-white as you assert.

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

Pooge · 18 hours ago

I agree that the GDPR could have gone much further but making data harvesting illegal was never the point—and this is not my opinion.

Websites could show a small banner that says "hey, we use cookies for targeted advertising; click here to opt in to them" but instead chose to use a full-screen pop-up where you can't even navigate properly if you don't click. Hell, some don't even have an easy to access "Reject all" button—I even wonder if it's legal.

While I admit cookie banners are a side effect of the GDPR, they only came to be because that's what the industry chose. Claiming that the reason Big Tech did not honor DNT is because there was no legal requirement is true but not the full picture; they ignored it because it is against their advertising incentives.

GDPR should be even more radical for sure but none of what they enacted was a mistake.

SpecialistK · 17 hours ago

Cookie law banners are almost never full-screen. They do often impede clicks on a website ("why can't I click? Oh, I'm zoomed in and the cookie banner is below the viewport now") but very few are as outright obtrusive as a screen-dimming "you have an ad blocker!" or "please join our mailing list!" prompts. At least in my experience.

But that's beside the point. My point (generally) is that what the industry wants is irrelevant. I'm sure many industries would like to pay below minimum wage, or employ children, or deny sick days. It's legislation (and labor unions, but I'm not going down that road right now.) that stops them. Legislators put a stop to all of that because it's bad for people and society beyond that company's bottom line. Governments are the ones who have the tax-collecting, police-enforcing ability and no one else.

Sites abide by the rules as they're read and the precedent of their enforcement. Maybe the only change that needs to be made is an explicit definition of good vs bad cookie banners. And real enforcement of those rules. That's above my pay grade.

But I'd like to go back to my original point: regulations being good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. Things that are ultimately good may have annoying effects on the few impacted. Like EV mandates which are great for emissions but deny car enthusiasts their vrooms. Or energy efficient refrigerators which don't have pull-out drawers like American ones did in the 1950s. Or compostable wooden spoons which send shivers down my spine when I put them in my mouth. Often this is a head vs heart distinction, and I accept that.

The GDPR is not an exception to this, and considering the immense power imbalance between the tech giants and the average person, the only counter we really have are legislators who need to take that responsibility seriously.

SpecialistK commented on Why the Internet Is Turning to Shit currentaffairs.org/news/w... · Posted by u/Improvement

grafmax · 2 days ago

You have workers laboring for the profit of owners. It’s more than just people doing things together.

SpecialistK · 18 hours ago

That's part of the balance we (most developed/Global North societies) have fallen into.

But it isn't entirely one-sided. A laborer is not legally responsible or liable for the legal or financial decisions a company makes. Their relationship is much clearer: do X work and get Y pay, as agreed (and hopefully labor law gets involved when that agreement is breached or contested. Hopefully.)

Meanwhile a (co-)owner is more liable and subject to enforcement than an employee. That owner may (let's be honest, will) make much more profit than a laborer if a company is successful. But will also be much poorer if that company fails. The owners declare bankruptcy while the laborer still has their salary and just looks for a new job.

It's the risk-reward balance in action, codified in how we organize our businesses.

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

Pooge · 18 hours ago

The priority of the GDRP was that you needed your users' consent to process their personal data. The industry answer—cookie banners—is something that the industry created because their tracking incentives were higher than their users' experience.

Do Not Track was a thing since basically forever and the industry willfully chose to ignore it.

If you want to keep using websites that have dark patterns and track you, that's on you. I would argue it's even better than before because at least the average user would notice he's being tracked and the website makes it clear that the user's interests are not aligned with the website's owner.

Blaming it on the lawmakers—which I use as mockery as much as the next guy—is of bad faith, in my opinion.

SpecialistK · 18 hours ago

Why is blaming the lawmakers, the only ones who can enact laws governing this, "bad faith"? Bad faith does not mean a decision or opinion you disagree with.

Do Not Track was ignored because there was no legal requirement to. Wikipedia is not the best source, I know, but its first sentence on the "Adoption" section is: "Very few advertising companies actually supported DNT, due to a lack of regulatory or voluntary requirements for its use"

Lack of regulatory requirements. In other words, no government had the smarts or the spine to make it a law. Who is to blame for making the law...? Lawmakers.

"that's on you" is also an absolute cop-out, in my opinion. Lots of things on the internet are illegal, usually for good reason. I don't think I need to list examples. The EU, EU member-states, and other jurisdictions have no problem making horrendous things on the web illegal to host or visit. If data harvesting is bad, explicitly make it illegal.

"The average user would notice he's being tracked" also is the counter-argument to my point - if every site, no matter how banal, has a bar at the bottom with a big blue button that effectively says "yeah whatever go away" then it's ignored. Boy who cried wolf. If this bar only showed up on Meta and Google and Doubleclick ads then maybe it would carry some weight.

I didn't think it was necessary to say, but apparently it is: my criticism of this part of the GDPR is not to invalidate the good work it has done for user rights on the web. Only to note that regulations, no matter how well intentioned (the point of the OP), come with side-effects that were unseen at the time. Don't waste keystrokes defending those unfortunate side effects (while apparently blaming everyone except those with the power to change it) but instead form campaigns and working groups to propose something better and encourage your legislators to adopt it.

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

immibis · 21 hours ago

Gosh. The law says I have to ask for consent before I slap you in the face. Now you're spammed with asks for consent to slap you in the face. Silly law!

SpecialistK · 18 hours ago

I'm 90% sure that this wouldn't pass, even in jurisdictions like Washington State where mutual combat is legal.

The EU passed laws regarding cookies. Were they so inept as to not understand how cookies are used, or are they in cahoots with the bad actors to give them an out? Hanlon's Razor is not kind to the regulations (/regulators) either way.

SpecialistK commented on Good EU regulations actuallygoodregulations.e... · Posted by u/saubeidl

Pooge · 21 hours ago

> And the GDPR, a great regulation for customer data, has had the side effect of putting cookie law banners everywhere which makes the web more frustrating

I say it countless times, but no. Data harvesting Big Tech put cookie banners everywhere and make the web frustrating for you. If they respected Do Not Track, they would not need to show you the banner. Instead, they don't take it into account and prefer to show you a banner that takes up all page instead of having a small banner that asks you if you want to agree to optional cookies.

SpecialistK · 18 hours ago

That doesn't pass the sniff test. If a masked assailant in the street is going to rob me, but has to say a certain sentence before so and almost uniformly does, that speaks to the legal priorities of those making the laws.

If hoovering up my data is bad, make it illegal. Don't wrap it up in niceties and then deflect the blame.