Please do not take HN threads straight to flamewar hell. That is a guaranteed way to ruin the thread, especially when the topic is divisive to begin with, and it damages the commons. Personal attacks aren't ok either.
Do you want nuclear war? Seriously, what is the appropriate response if it turned out China did this on purpose? If you cannot give an answer to this, why criticize those who see the inherent danger that you have no solution to?
Punishment should be due only when actual proveable facts can be shown. Otherwise it's just rampant speculation which just feeds into sometimes political power moves. We already have enough of that going on.
Ask if there's a structure in place to measure, or evaluate your growth to award raises. Otherwise, your next raise is going to be depending on that next sale for however long you can tolerate it.
We have some ducks in our backyard, who aren't the same pairs I usually see during the Spring. This group showed up a few weeks ago, and haven't left... I imagine they're coming from somewhere in Canada far north, but it's unusual to see them linger for so long. Seems like the current climate is confusing to the animals and the trees.
My experience in tech is that companies will go above and beyond to hire minorities including women, big companies will sometimes lower requirements to get more of these candidates in. You have to be wary though particularly with startups who talk a lot about culture, usually it translates to 'you should be working on our product in your spare time'.
Naw it's all good. I hear ya. It's similar in the sense that if that thing age, race, whatever is the thing... I can't do anything about that and it seems to preempt anything else.
Can we just agree to silo off the EU? Why should foreign companies have to comply with these policies anyway? GDPR compliance has already had a negative impact on web UX.
Imagine a scenario where this passes. Larger companies in the US and elsewhere are able to put in place "filtering" to comply with the mandate, but then other smaller companies simply turn off the EU.
When it comes to regulations, larger companies have the will and resources to meet them. Stifling competition and becoming dominant in the marketplace.
Sure, some commentators will argue that SaaS products can popup to fill the "filtering" requirements. But it could be something that companies just simply cannot afford to implement and again, we're back to blocking off the EU.
The knock on effect is that at least for EU content, startups will have yet another hurdle to get off the ground.
Now, when the rest of the world starts to block off the EU and EU customers start seeing their access being limited as time goes on. It may or may not cause a backlash. Who knows at this point.
As a solo-founder who is working on a startup that is hugely impacted by this. I really hope this does not pass. If it does, oh well. I'll shrug and postpone EU participation until my company is able to afford the extra cost.
>Why should foreign companies have to comply with these policies anyway?
Because they want revenue from EU citizens? Should a car company from China have to comply to US safety regulations when selling cars to US citizens?
>GDPR compliance has already had a negative impact on web UX.
Nah. I've switched off tracking on every website I use often via the popups and I've noticed much faster loading. Imo GDPR has made the web experience better.
> Should a car company from China have to comply to US safety regulations when selling cars to US citizens?
In your example, the car company is implicitly selling to a foreign country. When it comes to software/websites, a user from a foreign country is incidentally served rather than implicitly.
So everyone who hosts a website has the obligation to read up on the legality of that particular website for all countries in the world, and block accordingly?
Which part of the ip is hard to decode? If you don't like how a country's laws are shaped, then stop selling there. You can't have your pie and eat it too. Either you obey the market laws and sell or you don't. If someone is using a VPN to get around your geo ban, then I think that's the user's implicit choice.
Why should the onus of blocking content in some faraway country be on the company publishing it? If you don't want your country's citizens to have access to something, well then, time for a Great Firewall.
>If you don't want your country's citizens to have access to something, well then, time for a Great Firewall.
It's not the EU who wants to ban access to something. It's the provider who wants to benefit financially from selling that product( targeted ads) without having to comply to the laws of the country that the selling happens. There is no other market that you get to do that. Why should your web page be different?
IP addresses aren't country codes, in the same way that phone numbers aren't permanent unique identifiers. If you block IP ranges, you'll let some European users through, and block some non-European users.
Is "at least we tried"-style blocking good enough?
>Is "at least we tried"-style blocking good enough?
Yea exactly. In absence of a mechanism to block users the discussion of who gets to police who is worthwhile. But if a company chooses not to comply with GDPR and at the same time doesn't utilize any available mechanism to block EU users then there is definitely intentional ignorance on their part.
Secondly, monetizing the EU is a step that usually occurs very late into the life of a startup. Startups almost always monetize the US first.
So if you are a company that owns a website that doesn't make money from the EU and the EU comes up with regulations that adds thousands of dollars in costs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential liability to your business, the obvious and easiest solution is to simply shut them off.
We have seen this occur for GDPR and I am confident it will occur for this legislation as well.
>Secondly, monetizing the EU is a step that usually occurs very late into the life of a startup. Startups almost always monetize the US first.
It's not a matter of what the founder/CEO of a startup chooses here. I will often open links from e.g. New York Times or other US news sites because something happened in New York or there's an interesting opinion piece that I want to read. These sites are profiting from my clicks so they have to obey the EU laws. If it was impossible for them to determine that I'm an EU citizen then it's a different story but an geo ban is trivial.
Or - they could just make money off you, and ignore what the EU wants!
Ultimately the EU's only recourse in things like this is to either convince the USA to act as its enforcer, or to set up a Great Firewall to stop you browsing to the NYT.
Or the EU could declare that business with NYT means you can't do business in the EU. Which would probably hurt a bit if ad networks jump off (I doubt Google wants to deal with this).
> It's not a matter of what the founder/CEO of a startup chooses here. I will often open links from e.g. New York Times or other US news sites because something happened in New York or there's an interesting opinion piece that I want to read. These sites are profiting from my clicks so they have to obey the EU laws
Ok, I don't think you understand how ads work. Your clicks don't make a website money if they are not selling ads in your country. The New York Times is not a startup so your point is irrelevant.
edit: if you are not aware that different countries have different ads markets your probably shouldn't have an opinion on GDPR.
If they don't make money, then why would they need to collect and share data about their users? If they don't collect and share, then they don't need to make any privacy notifications, so it doesn't impact UX.
> If they don't make money, then why would they need to collect and share data about their users?
If you've ever developed a website you should absolutely know why you might need to collect and share data. Google analytics is considered sharing btw.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit, but by data I mean personal data, which is what GDPR is all about. While the desire to collect general statistics about site usage is obvious, I still do not see any reason to collect personal data.
Welcome to what the rest of the world has been experiencing under the US hegemony for the past 3 decades. Since we are not all operating under the same authority, and so we don't have anyone to appeal to for a final answer when we disagree, relations between nation's and their companies have been a matter of practicality rather than ethics. If you can silo off the EU feel free, but most companies won't voluntarily give up access to the largest economy in the known universe if they can find any way at all you can mitigate the local regulations
However, when I was just looking it up now to find evidence for you I found various sources saying the US, China, or the EU was the largest so now I am not sure
The US does regulate domestic internet firms from time to time like with COPPA. But my daily internet experience is by and large left alone by Congress.
Whereas I have to dismiss annoying cookie popups every few hours thanks to the EU. Somehow I prefer Congress.
As but one (or, actually: thousands) of data points in evidence: If your idea was workable, there'd be some among the tech companies both large and small would have implemented it.
> After the first hack, Terpin alleged that an impostor was able to get his phone number from an "insider cooperating with the hacker" without an AT&T store employee requiring him to show valid identification or provide a required password.
If what he's alleging is true, then he certainly has a case against AT&T.
Nonsense. I publish all of my photos on Flickr using a CC license. My picture of California’s Martins Beach has been used in several publications, my pictures from state parks have also shown up in quite a few places. I don’t need to monetize this aspect of my life. That people are enjoying and using my artwork is great, more than I was expecting.
I'm a fan of CC, and I see how it is valuable to people, but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work?
Honest question. Creative Commons is a wonderful thing. I'm just wondering what you mean by stating that you have a principled reason for releasing everything under CC.
> but what is the core principle involved with not being paid for your work?
I doubt their core principle is to not be paid for their work, and they never said that it was - you've imagined that from a silly twist of what they've written. They said their core principle was to licence as CC.
Do you think charity volunteers have a core principle to work for free? Of course not - instead they have a core principle to contribute towards a cause and they accept not being paid for it in order to achieve that.
I would imagine this person's core principle is the same - they want to contribute their photographs for other people to use without licensing problems and they accept not being paid for it.
Err, you can use CC-BY-NC the same as AGPL can be used for semi-commercial software like CockroachDB et al. Yes, a plain CC-0 or CC-BY makes it hard to sell licenses, though they are still possible, due to not being able to make it look endorsed by the original creator, which is somewhat hard in e.g. submarine ads, like those where billboards show something you don't understand for a few weeks/months, followed by a reveal that links the brand to the campaign. There are probably other usecases that are blocked/made hard by CC-BY alone, without even going to CC-BY-NC.
It's mostly: I use other people's software/media/services which give me a lot of freedom, so it's the least I can do, to release the photos I already took under a license under which I also give those freedoms to other people.
I'm mostly an amateur photographer and only occasionally do payed work anyway. Most of my work with models is TFP (Time for print), and then I negotiate that those pictures become CC too.
