Your logic applies to fire codes and food sanitary rules just as well.
Doing the right thing is a burden, that’s why it’s called the right thing and not the convenient thing.
Doing the right thing is a burden, that’s why it’s called the right thing and not the convenient thing.
Small startups also often get the benefit of reduced regulatory burden, which is fitting because they have less overall impact on society. Once they become large, it is fitting that they play by rules that benefit the majority.
It seems you have an axe to grind and derailed the conversion to compare the US with ancient Rome. Please provide a citation showing a correlation between increased privacy regulations and reduced gini coefficients.
That's the real issue here. You can either decide that privacy is a basic right that everyone has and cannot be negotiated away, in which case this law makes sense.
Or you can decide that it's a decision each person makes, and let the market take care of providing options that are more vs. less privacy-respecting.
> Or you can decide that it's a decision each person makes, and let the market take care of providing options that are more vs. less privacy-respecting.
Or, collectively, a group of people can agree on a government that supports privacy protection for goods sold under its remit. Which is what's happened here. I get that it's not popular in the US, but privacy controls are quite popular in Europe, and the EU is in this case following the mood of its people.
Not sure why you phrase it "or"? I think we agree that that's one sensible approach to take (treating it as a basic right that can't be negotiated away, much like other things).
This is a false equivalence.
And those who end up in hospital, in the US, possibly without insurance? I guess that, and the ensuing bills is "just" an _extremely_ bad day then?