Hacker News Reader

Comment by cujo | Hacker News Reader

How would this keep newcomers out?

Salesforce relied on things this 'privacy law' would make illegal in order to get where they are today. This law would prevent other companies from following in their footsteps.

That’s really not true at all. DMP was a very recent acquisition, as was Marketing Cloud and Pardot.

Core Salesforce is a company data store often requiring human data input. It’s where your information goes when you fill out a “Contact us” form on somebody’s website.

How is that relevant? Say a law like this comes into effect, then they'll need to change their practices / delete that data etc. So going forward they won't have that advantage over an upstart, they'll need to compete in the same market.

They have the advantage of size and resources.

If the starting table stakes to get started becomes GDPR-style compliance infrastructure that takes 3 engineering man years to implement properly, then new companies will happen less, which means less future competition for the incumbent.

Salesforce is a company that operates in Europe. They already have to comply with GDPR (and have already spent tons of dev time on scrambling to comply). They're ready for GDPR, and so they're probably betting they're ready for whatever (likely weaker) US law inspired by GDPR that would come along. Any new competitors, on the other hand (or any non-multinational competitors) would have to scramble and pay heavy costs to "catch up".

It's using the legal system as a tool for their competitive advantage -- force everyone to do the thing you're already doing.

> Say a law like this comes into effect, then they'll need to change their practices / delete that data etc.

Oh honey.

Yes. We are learning from our mistakes.

Are those things we want other companies to be doing, though?

>> Salesforce relied on things this 'privacy law' would make illegal in order to get where they are today. This law would prevent other companies from following in their footsteps.

> Are those things we want other companies to be doing, though?

Apparently if someone got successful doing something bad once, we're supposed to be OK with people doing that bad thing forever, lest we risk some "regulatory capture" boogeyman.

The solution to regulatory capture is an actual solution to regulatory capture, not a general aversion to regulation.

There is almost no solution to regulatory capture - more gov to solve it does not work in practice, particularly because after these commissions are founded are idealistic principles, the public stops paying attention and often doesn't have the breadth of knowledge to understand how regulations could be used to prevent healthy competition. The way it unfolds, turns out, is very predictable. It limits the tools/services that could otherwise be offered and often keeps progress in that industry frozen in time almost, the existing companies frozen in place too.

Cost ($$, time, etc) of compliance impacts newcomers more than incumbents.

Higher cost to do business by requiring compliance with regulations.

I think the cost is small compared to the externalized cost to each person who's data has been leaked, lost or misused.

OH NO! Someone might lose a few dollars because they can't vacuum up my personal data and sell it for their personal gain! Heaven forbid!

Thank you for your sarcasm, its been very valuable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com