Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed to opt out of anti-fraud legislation? Anti-money laundering? Human rights protections?
A parallel anonymous-and-free-for-all-but-with-payments-included, smth. like Tor-but-powered-by-IPFSv9-and-Etherv7, will probably emerge in a couple decades done right after a couple failed iterations. Some techs need hardware to catch up to be cheap enough, and only after a few failed attempts they manage to grow a trend... and it will probably will last until it's used to finance a proper starting of WW3 and by then banning it will be too late.
Anyway, we'll enjoy the hell out of ourselves on the new patreons-but-for-snuff-p03n, so it will all have been worth it :)
And that once such tech becomes usable by a large percent of the general population (by eg. allowing "unsecure" websites to "do anything") and we make the mistake to add a truly functional and anonymous money transfer technology to this layer of information tech, we're royally screwed as a species.
I obviously don't want a lawless and free for all regular/default internet because on the regular internet we exchange real money and we have real identities. I'm perfectly OK with having lawless layer of information exchange and broadcasting (it's just a natural generalization and globalization of "free speech" and I think it's crucial for humanity) and even working to making them usable by the general population, as long as we don't allow any serious kind of money transfer and commerce to happen through them. Eg. A psycho posting a killing video once a decade is no biggie and would happen anyway, let's at least enjoy it / groups of psycho creating a market and industry for their "products", not ok. Two random guys planning to meet to exchange some guns for some money is no biggie and already happens anyway; trading weapons on scales to supply real wars not ok. Etc.
De-facto "having sites op-out of anti-fraud legislation" or of "human rights" protections is already happening, and is less obvious because of the centralized nature of our current internet. A less centralized internet will just allow it to happen in the open in theory. Only it won't because since they're already doing other more serious illegal stuff and don't want to draw attention.
PP's "Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed" thinking was just funny and ridiculous at the same time: there's nothing bizzare, thing are already happening (naturally) like this, and ofc it's happening discretely (eg. having telegram or other messaging app groups instead of http websites but performing similar functions etc etc) and in the silence bc ppl doing them do even more illegal stuff and nobody wants attention from authority or ppl concerned with morality ...and I couldn't help make fun of it a bit. It's the kind of guys that argue against free speech and yell the "but think of the kids" argument at us all the time, and it's tiresome to have to trick them all the time since reasoning with them doesn't work...
So suggesting that maybe we should bring what's already happening anyway in the open, base it on more open standards technology, have it be indexable by search engines etc. :P I'd rather have a legal:any flag that I can add to a google search when I want to go off the beaten track then to have to switch the program/protocol I'm using (and the browser should make sure as hell I don't leak my identity and don't pay for anything on such unsafe sites), and that's the crux of it, the browser would know that a site is unsafe and needs total sandboxing simply because the site owner has decide to "opt out of the laws" - you realize that longer term when s settles down it's a win win situation for everyone if you just twist your mind out of the default narrative the current tech-corporate establishment is brainwashing you with...
(Or the "let's make a decentralized and truly free internet layer" into a real and usable thing... or the crypto-crimies will beat us to it and do a version that also has payments, generates obvious disasters/wars etc., and then is taken over by big gov and turned to a totalitarian nightmare with social credit tracking extra features" argument.)
cyberspace was about freeing the people and the flow of information between people, not the corporations that silo the data in their data centers for ptofit.
Maybe the laws & regulations you complain about are actually necessary because otherwise people will keep being greedy & nasty and eventually outnumber honest people?
You can't make exceptions based on what's convenient for some business.
Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products?
> ? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation
To commit frauds, for example?
I also believe that should be opt-in.
> To commit frauds, for example?
Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting.
But that is irrelevant, we European citizens are happy to have it.
And actually fought to have it.
It's a consumer protection law, what you want is consumers with less or no protections.
> Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting.
I'm quite sure the majority of users visiting a website that hosts GA are giving away their data unwillingly.
Would you opt-in theft too?
Yes, indeed. I don't believe the government should mandate specific protections consumers should receive, because it just serves to reduce consumer options. And this is also why I wish GDPR would have been opt in, giving more options to consumers.
For example, in a world with no government mandated "2 year warranty", some manufacturers would offer a product with "2 year warranty" and some other manufacturers would offer the same product "without warranty", but at a lower price.
Consumers would then be free to chose if they want to pay the cheaper price without warranty or the higher price with the warranty. There are two options for consumers in this world whereas in the world with mandated warranty, only the "higher price with warranty" option is available.
It's the same with GDPR, GDPR compliance has a cost. Some websites have started banning EU IPs for that reason.
Of course, the above assumes that consumers are not mislead and that transactions are voluntary. Therefore, I do think there should be laws against fraud, theft, misrepresentation, etc.
What you believe or not it's completely irrelevant.
In my Country consumer protection is in the Constitution, at article 41. [1]
So the government is duty bound to protect the consumers.
Thanks God I was born here and not in olalonde-land.
[1] Art. 41
Private economic enterprise is free. It may not be carried out against the common good or in a way that may harm public security, liberty, or human dignity.
The law determines appropriate planning and controls so that public and private economic activities may be directed and coordinated towards social ends.
> "some manufacturers would offer a product with "2 year warranty"
Or, realistically, all the manufacturers would offer zero days warranty and only luxury brands would offer life-long warranty to people who can afford their products (e.g. less than 1% of the population).
Example: Apple, which is not exactly a cheap brand, only offers one year warranty in the US, while it's 2 years mandated by the law in EU.
iPhone 13 Pro USA price: 999$
iPhone 13 Pro Italy price: 1250$
PS: In the US, you could probably get that extra year of warranty from Apple or from a third party (for like 20$). But you don't have to.
which anyone understands that is not the same thing.
You can also buy 2 of the same items for redundancy, I wouldn't call it "warranty" though.
> iPhone 13 Pro USA price: 999$
> iPhone 13 Pro Italy price: 1250$
The price on Apple's U.S. online store website is before taxes
But anyway that's a completely meaningless comparison:
Parmigiano Reggiano in Italy Euro ~10 / Kg
Parmigiano Reggiano in USA $ ~20 / pound AKA $ 44.4 / Kg
I don't.
On the contrary, I believe they should thank us for encouraging them to make better and more durable products.
If I am spending 12 hundred euros on an electronic device, the least the manufacturer can do is give me the warranty that it won't break on its own before 2 years of usage.
Anyway, Xiaomi makes perfectly valid products at 1/3 of Apple prices.
Maybe it's not the 2-year warranty the issue here...