> even worse just retract from the market
I disagree that this is worse - if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market then it opens the doors for privacy-respecting competition to take its place.
On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten.
Implement RTBF in context of IPFS.
[1] Second order effects like prevent rats/snakes by awarding award for rat/snake heads, lead to rat/snake farms.
> if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market
You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.
> Implement RTBF in context of IPFS.
How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Not saying it should detect CSAM, but once it is found, how does one go about having it removed? You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)?
> You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.
If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!
The impossibility of the assured annihilation of data is true of all protocols for data retrieval so long as client nodes are free and able to copy the data retrieved.
It's why removal of illegal content from the internet has been an abysmal failure.
So do people with skeletons in the closet. Not saying you do, but right to be forgotten can infringe on other people's right to be well informed.
This is not a hypothetical. It has already happened.
> How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it?
Using CSAM to justify a law, is not a winning strategy.
It would be tedious but probably destroying all nodes. Which means IPFS is not compatible with RTBF.
> If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!
That does leave state actors though.
Could you elaborate on the second order effects?
This is like saying that regulating damage to the environment is bad because would make businesses that can't exist without doing said damage would retract from the market. Good riddance, if a business can't or isn't willing to protect EU's citizens data they should go away, like many polluting industries that had to adapt or die.
Sure if a global problem is only taken by a small subset of states. It's not solving a problem just essentially grandstanding. See climate change.
But GDPR and related laws have been a mixed bag and a combination of neat and "why the hell do you think that will work?".
>The GDPR (European Law)
> As of May 25, 2018, a new data privacy law known as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (or the "GDPR") went into effect through the EEA countries. SafeGraph does not offer products or services involving the collection or sale of “personal data” in EEA countries. We likewise seek not to collect such personal data from our data providers. Should any of the foregoing change, we will update this section of our Privacy Policy.
If this is not a net win, I don't know what is.
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l. Industry and Commerce LUXEMBOURG 746,000,000 euro Non-compliance with general data processing principles 16 Jul 2021
WhatsApp Ireland Ltd. Media, Telecoms and Broadcasting IRELAND 225,000,000 euro Insufficient fulfilment of information obligations 02 Sep 2021
In 2021, Amazon EU S.à r.l. had a revenue of over 51 billion euros
Amazon paid zero corporation tax in Luxembourg last year, despite seeing a record sales income of €44 billion.
As first reported by The Guardian, accounts for Amazon EU Sarl published online showed that despite making billions of dollars in sales, the company's Luxembourg unit, which oversees retail in countries across Europe, made a €1.2 billion loss and therefore paid zero tax.
Not only did the company not have to pay corporate tax, but it was also handed €56 million in tax credits to offset future tax bills in the event that it does turn a profit. That also comes on top of €2.7 billion in losses that have been carried forward and can be used to offset future tax bills.
It was quite clever - make people believe the legislation is for their benefit, whereas in reality it has been created to help with data abuse and make money off of it.
Sorta? I don't consent to much when I get the pop-up. You can revoke consent at any time as well and you're entitled to the data the company has on you.
You have a bias for being a tech person who understand this, but vast majority of people have no idea what it is about and they just consent because they don't care or know the impact of their decision.
Do you have a link to the study that shows this?
I'd happily replace that whole cookie mess.