iamacyborg

PIN number

> Why is it that all of the enforcement effort been so unevenly directed specifically at non-European companies?

Do you have any evidence of that?

> You are replying to a comment complaining about the annoyance for users that the law has created. When will that be fixed?

The law isn’t about fixing an annoyance to users. If you’re annoyed by bad UX, tell your boss to cut that shit out because they’re probably part of the problem too.

What I struggle to understand is you’d rather have your privacy right absolutely derailed just so you have a couple things less to click. Wild.

> People dislike it because they dislike its practical effects, and frankly the EU should take responsibility for that and try to fix it.

What’s to fix?

A business needs a legitimate reason to process personal data, people need to be sufficiently informed about how their data will be processed. These are not impossible obstacles. Anyone who claims otherwise is acting in bad faith because they know that people would not agree to what the business wants to do with their data.

NOYB have raised a complaint on the second one for a publisher in the Nordics.

https://noyb.eu/en/nordic-media-giant-schibsted-switches-pay...

AFAIK, those are not legally compliant.

What loopholes?

I read it in full years ago and found it quite clear. Which parts did you find to be vague?

> Instead of letting the best product win by consumer choice, they're forcing every messaging product to become mediocre.

Do you really believe products win because they’re the best? I’d strongly argue that monopolistic power and loss-leading VC investment is what drives success.

> Most EU initiatives have damaged everyday UX on the web and in tech.

Are you really trying to suggest that GDPR and PECR are bad pieces of legislation because businesses have decided that they’d prefer to give you a bad UX?

> at work

A lot of performance issues are down to MDM software.

That won’t help a PM hit their bonus

> The UK did this already and ML is out of control there: criminals just don't care.

From 18th May:

“A new £30m High Street organised crime unit has been announced by the government after the BBC's year-long investigative reporting into illegal mini-marts, vape shops and barbers.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3pzwx449no

Of course, remains to be seen what, if any, impact this ends up having.

> It is odd that they cite customer demand just after people leave Google for DuckDuckGo due to AI enshittification.

You’ll probably find this is extremely limited to whatever circle you find yourself in

Being discoverable is one thing, having your content stolen wholesale is another

Just look at Corning’s lifetime chart

I definitely see it going that way from a marketing perspective if you want what you send/produce to be machine readable and actually used in intermediated surfaces like email and web search.

> Are there any VCs looking to give away a few billion dollars to disrupt the ossified, wasteful, poor customer experience taxi app market?

Waymo are rolling out, slowly. No one'll be in a real position to compete against them.

One could take an equally uncharitable approach to what engineers and product teams do.

If we had visibility, we would know what doesn't work and we would stop sending it. Almost like there are aligned interests there rather than a purely adversarial relationship.

Yeah, that's true about the allow, and for sure marketing and product teams are deploying misleading consent priming which doesn't fully explain to the user what they're actually allowing in the first place, or setting baselines that are too permissive vs what the user is expecting.

> I'm happy that devices and ecosystems are moving in the direction of triaging and filtering sender content, as power needs to lie in the user's holistic

I don't disagree necessarily, but I see it as them putting themselves in a position to act as a toll collector, which has already happened with email and web search and is only getting worse with the introduction of LLM's into both of those things.

It's a bummer this article ended up doing much better than my email one, as I think that might better position the problem in a lot of user's minds and highlight just how much surveillance is sitting on top of those free inboxes.

Do you think that logic holds true for web search as well? Because this is happening there in a much stronger way too.

If you really like Song X and Song X happens to be on a popular spotify playlist with a bunch of stuff you’re not into, you’ll start getting recommended all that other stuff on last.fm, no?

Agreed but I don’t find the framing of labelling marketers as spammers particularly accurate or useful.

What’s fun is all that “intervening” infrastructure they’ve introduced also doubles up as a big surveillance network.

SMS will go exactly the same direction as push as far as being intermediated.

Not everything needs to be summarised

If you’re in gmail there’s literally already an interface to easily unsubscribe from stuff, it’s under “Manage subscriptions”. Yahoo similarly have a “subscriptions hub”

I’d recommend following your own train of thought, why is big tech so hell bent on intermediating the experience between their users and everyone else? They’ve done it for email, web search, mobile experiences, advertising, etc.

You want to use any of those things, you’ll have to pay their toll booth, figuratively or literally.

I live in the UK where we actually have sane regulations around this stuff, I realise laws are different and folks in the US in particular don’t have much protection from spam.

I realise that CANSPAM as a law in the US is titled appropriately but I live in the UK where declarative opt-in is a must apart from a couple “soft” opt-in scenarios.

People. Opt. In.

Stop conflating your preferences with other people’s.