6 ms·

The problem is any regulation is that it increases the startup costs for smaller businesses. So as more regulation comes in it will just end up cementing the l

by maximus1983 7y ago

The problem is any regulation is that it increases the startup costs for smaller businesses. So as more regulation comes in it will just end up cementing the large players in place as they can absorb the costs of any regulation, while smaller businesses will have higher startup costs (which lets face it were next to nothing). So while you maybe rejoicing now that shitty companies have gone for now, regulation will just make it harder for these massive companies to be toppled as it makes it harder for smaller companies to comply. The EU are trying to have article 13 pushed through and any site that has user generated content will have to have some sort of upload filter to check for copyrighted content. That is going to cost money to implement and since Youtube hasn't really be able to achieve it, the only people that will be supplying the software will be the likes of Google, Microsoft etc ... So again it will just make it harder to the small business and help the large businesses. Also a lot of these regulations make are making the web a shittier place. Every time I go onto a site now, I have the stupid cookie and GDPR notice plaster in front of what I want to look at. I already protect myself and don't care about their attempt to track me. It is just an irritation that nobody pays attention to and it achieves the opposite of what it was intended to achieve.

oblio 7y ago
Legislation is not meant for you (at least for now). It's meant for those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves.
- friedman23 7y ago
  >It's meant for those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves. Like EU media giants?
- sprayk 7y ago
  And now those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves will be unable to start a business on the internet in the EU. Do you think these two groups have to be mutually exclusive?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Protecting the masses is more important than edge cases. Most people will never start an internet business.
    - btilly 7y ago
      Without the people who start business type X, we won't have competition in business type X. Therefore a law that makes it hard to start businesses of type X will affect you whether or not you ever intend to start such businesses. This applies for any X that you care to name, including "internet". If you believe that you can both pass regulations that make businesses of type X harder to form, and enjoy the benefits of having new businesses of type X around, then there is probably a big flaw in your thinking.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        In case of GDPR, X is "businesses abusing people's data", which essentially boils down to "adtech". We don't need more competition in adtech. We need adtech to die.
        btilly 7y ago
        No, X is "businesses that handle people's data". For whatever reason. The goal is to regulate adtech. But the effect is to impose regulatory costs on every company that wants to have a discussion forum on their website. (And the upcoming copyright bill is even worse.)
        jdietrich 7y ago
        Handling other people's personal data is a serious responsibility. GDPR imposes regulatory costs, in the same way that health and safety or environmental protection legislation imposes regulatory costs. It's not creating any new costs, it's just properly pricing an externality. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox...
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  I don't see how this answers the point. I'm of the opinion that privacy regulation is a good idea, but it's trivially true that it's an additional burden for start-ups. The Is it worth it? question is a legitimate one.
  - fromMars 7y ago
    Honestly, the biggest problem with GDPR is it's current implementation, i.e. the on demand wipeouts.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
If your business model is scum I'd wager that it should die a slow and painful death. I really don't see, why a scummy business should get a pass, just because it's a startup.
- Flavius 7y ago
  Why are you getting downvoted? This is ridiculous. I've seen a few other comments like yours getting a lot of downvotes.
- maximus1983 7y ago
  It hurts the non-scummy businesses as well. So the regulation causes problems for people that haven't done anything wrong. A lets be clear here. People aren't dying, it mostly ads and shitty data collection. I think it might be better to actually educate the public (which govs are doing) as to some of the pitfalls of the internet rather than regulating the crap out of it.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    it mostly ads and shitty data collection While this is true it's exactly that, which turned the world (and by extension the world wide web) into a fucking dystopia. Brexit, without the whole concept of targeted ads and the data collection that goes with it would have not been possible. Yep, I think add tech is utterly and totally evil. And all that to make a buck, or a billion. I, for one, think that's a disastrously high price to pay for a few successful tech companies. People aren't dying, Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one.
    - maximus1983 7y ago
      > Brexit, without the whole concept of targeted ads and the data collection that goes with it would have not been possible. However nobody mentioned all the people that didn't bother voting because they were at Glastonbury which was on at the same time. I very much doubt that is true. The UK has been a bad fit in the EU and there has been a sentiment for years that we don't want any EU interference. For example many don't want "The EU monopoly money" (not my words mind you) and generally the public is Euro-sceptic. The papers and politicians were trying to find a scapegoat because quite frankly it didn't go the way they wanted. Much like Trump's victory claiming that Russia hacked the election (there were like a few thousand placed on facebook, which paled in comparison to the Democrat's budget). Many of the people that voted out were of older generations that don't pay attention to tech. So I find it dubious how much influence the likes of Cambridge analytical really had. > Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one. Like exactly what? You haven't qualified anything here. You just claimed I am wrong because of what? What adverts, what is happening? This is a very vague claim. I suspect much like the vote to leave the UK it will be very spurious evidence.
mattmanser 7y ago
I've started 2 startups in the UK since GDPR (well, 1 that happens to sell 2 different products), not really affected me one little bit. But then again, they're not scummy companies. Soooooo, bullshit. I had to put in like a few hours thought into what data I was collecting and how long it was appropriate to keep it. I happen to know quite a lot about GDPR because I dealt with it at a client I was previously working with, if you want to make it extremely complicated, you can. But you don't have to. In one we actually track user's behaviour to make better recommendations, but we're open about it and they can disable it if they want. We also delete that data if they delete their account. It's just a different mindset, it's their data, not yours. You're open about what you're doing and if they want you to delete it, you delete it.
- maximus1983 7y ago
  "I happen to know quite a lot about GDPR because I dealt with it at a client I was previously working with," There we go. You already done the time investment at someone else's expense. So thanks for proving my point. My comments weren't about GDPR but about regulation in general. Any regulation requires more work which makes it difficult for smaller players. You had to do the extra work.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Should we ban food inspections too, since that means smaller players have to do more work? How about automobile safety testing, it's such a hassle for auto makers. Why not get rid of building codes and prohibitions on lead in children's toys while we're at it.
    - danso 7y ago
      I imagine the anti-GDPR-folks might argue that overly onerous restrictions have been harmful to smaller players. Temperature requirements effectively made Peking duck illegal in California, until a lawmaker representing the Chinatown area proposed a law specifically exempting it: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2015/08/22/peking-duck-is-so-important-to-chinese-culture-it-got-a-health-code-exception-heres-why/ https://www.sgvtribune.com/2015/08/22/peking-duck-is-so-impo...
lm28469 7y ago
We need regulations because people will go as far as they can to make more money. Businesses were upset when their country banned child labor while their concurrents' country didn't, same when weekends, vacations, reasonable work weeks were introduced. What about safety requirements, food quality inspections, &c. Self regulating markets are a myth, just look at the US insurance and health industries if you want a proof. That's also why in healthy countries you get a lot of free passes when you start a business: lower tax rate for a few years, 0% loans, advisors paid by the state, &c. > regulation will just make it harder for these massive companies to be toppled as it makes it harder for smaller companies to comply. Why did no one topple apple, amazon or google in the last 25 years? If anything the lack of regulations when they started allowed them to become the de facto monopolies we all know today.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Some of those companies aren't even 25 years old. They didn't get toppled because they were the young upstarts growing into incumbents. The problem isn't supporting privacy and data rights, it's doing so in a way that creates unintended consequences which actually worsen the market and UX for consumers. There are better ways this regulation could've been written, but it wasn't. That's the issue.
iamaelephant 7y ago
> The problem is any regulation is that it increases the startup costs for smaller businesses. Why should this be the one thing we optimise for?
- manigandham 7y ago
  Where do you think jobs come from?
  - hrktb 7y ago
    Businesses that don’t have security issues when handling private data, obviously. I agree with the GP, in that ease of starting companies should not be the primary goal, setting security and privacy on the back seat. It shouldn’t harder than it needs to, not easier at any cost.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      > It shouldn’t harder than it needs to This is what's happening though.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Because if you do poorly on the small business front, then they can't grow into bigger businesses. How many EU tech companies do you know of compared to American ones?
  - franciscop 7y ago
    Many, but I'm european so it probably doesn't count (; If you make it harder for companies for protecting people it's still a win. I recently visited SF, "the center of innovation" for the startup world. I saw 2 people defecating on the street in 2 weeks, countless peeing and had to jump over homeless at some points to walk the street. If that's the cost for startup and innovation, please don't bring it to EU.
    - 7y ago

oblio 7y ago

Legislation is not meant for you (at least for now). It's meant for those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves.

friedman23 7y ago
>It's meant for those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves. Like EU media giants?
sprayk 7y ago
And now those who cannot/do not know how to protect themselves will be unable to start a business on the internet in the EU. Do you think these two groups have to be mutually exclusive?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Protecting the masses is more important than edge cases. Most people will never start an internet business.
  - btilly 7y ago
    Without the people who start business type X, we won't have competition in business type X. Therefore a law that makes it hard to start businesses of type X will affect you whether or not you ever intend to start such businesses. This applies for any X that you care to name, including "internet". If you believe that you can both pass regulations that make businesses of type X harder to form, and enjoy the benefits of having new businesses of type X around, then there is probably a big flaw in your thinking.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      In case of GDPR, X is "businesses abusing people's data", which essentially boils down to "adtech". We don't need more competition in adtech. We need adtech to die.
      - btilly 7y ago
        No, X is "businesses that handle people's data". For whatever reason. The goal is to regulate adtech. But the effect is to impose regulatory costs on every company that wants to have a discussion forum on their website. (And the upcoming copyright bill is even worse.)
        jdietrich 7y ago
        Handling other people's personal data is a serious responsibility. GDPR imposes regulatory costs, in the same way that health and safety or environmental protection legislation imposes regulatory costs. It's not creating any new costs, it's just properly pricing an externality. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox...
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
I don't see how this answers the point. I'm of the opinion that privacy regulation is a good idea, but it's trivially true that it's an additional burden for start-ups. The Is it worth it? question is a legitimate one.
- fromMars 7y ago
  Honestly, the biggest problem with GDPR is it's current implementation, i.e. the on demand wipeouts.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

If your business model is scum I'd wager that it should die a slow and painful death. I really don't see, why a scummy business should get a pass, just because it's a startup.

Flavius 7y ago
Why are you getting downvoted? This is ridiculous. I've seen a few other comments like yours getting a lot of downvotes.
maximus1983 7y ago
It hurts the non-scummy businesses as well. So the regulation causes problems for people that haven't done anything wrong. A lets be clear here. People aren't dying, it mostly ads and shitty data collection. I think it might be better to actually educate the public (which govs are doing) as to some of the pitfalls of the internet rather than regulating the crap out of it.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  it mostly ads and shitty data collection While this is true it's exactly that, which turned the world (and by extension the world wide web) into a fucking dystopia. Brexit, without the whole concept of targeted ads and the data collection that goes with it would have not been possible. Yep, I think add tech is utterly and totally evil. And all that to make a buck, or a billion. I, for one, think that's a disastrously high price to pay for a few successful tech companies. People aren't dying, Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one.
  - maximus1983 7y ago
    > Brexit, without the whole concept of targeted ads and the data collection that goes with it would have not been possible. However nobody mentioned all the people that didn't bother voting because they were at Glastonbury which was on at the same time. I very much doubt that is true. The UK has been a bad fit in the EU and there has been a sentiment for years that we don't want any EU interference. For example many don't want "The EU monopoly money" (not my words mind you) and generally the public is Euro-sceptic. The papers and politicians were trying to find a scapegoat because quite frankly it didn't go the way they wanted. Much like Trump's victory claiming that Russia hacked the election (there were like a few thousand placed on facebook, which paled in comparison to the Democrat's budget). Many of the people that voted out were of older generations that don't pay attention to tech. So I find it dubious how much influence the likes of Cambridge analytical really had. > Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one. Like exactly what? You haven't qualified anything here. You just claimed I am wrong because of what? What adverts, what is happening? This is a very vague claim. I suspect much like the vote to leave the UK it will be very spurious evidence.

mattmanser 7y ago

I've started 2 startups in the UK since GDPR (well, 1 that happens to sell 2 different products), not really affected me one little bit. But then again, they're not scummy companies. Soooooo, bullshit. I had to put in like a few hours thought into what data I was collecting and how long it was appropriate to keep it. I happen to know quite a lot about GDPR because I dealt with it at a client I was previously working with, if you want to make it extremely complicated, you can. But you don't have to. In one we actually track user's behaviour to make better recommendations, but we're open about it and they can disable it if they want. We also delete that data if they delete their account. It's just a different mindset, it's their data, not yours. You're open about what you're doing and if they want you to delete it, you delete it.

maximus1983 7y ago
"I happen to know quite a lot about GDPR because I dealt with it at a client I was previously working with," There we go. You already done the time investment at someone else's expense. So thanks for proving my point. My comments weren't about GDPR but about regulation in general. Any regulation requires more work which makes it difficult for smaller players. You had to do the extra work.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Should we ban food inspections too, since that means smaller players have to do more work? How about automobile safety testing, it's such a hassle for auto makers. Why not get rid of building codes and prohibitions on lead in children's toys while we're at it.
  - danso 7y ago
    I imagine the anti-GDPR-folks might argue that overly onerous restrictions have been harmful to smaller players. Temperature requirements effectively made Peking duck illegal in California, until a lawmaker representing the Chinatown area proposed a law specifically exempting it: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2015/08/22/peking-duck-is-so-important-to-chinese-culture-it-got-a-health-code-exception-heres-why/ https://www.sgvtribune.com/2015/08/22/peking-duck-is-so-impo...

lm28469 7y ago

We need regulations because people will go as far as they can to make more money. Businesses were upset when their country banned child labor while their concurrents' country didn't, same when weekends, vacations, reasonable work weeks were introduced. What about safety requirements, food quality inspections, &c. Self regulating markets are a myth, just look at the US insurance and health industries if you want a proof. That's also why in healthy countries you get a lot of free passes when you start a business: lower tax rate for a few years, 0% loans, advisors paid by the state, &c. > regulation will just make it harder for these massive companies to be toppled as it makes it harder for smaller companies to comply. Why did no one topple apple, amazon or google in the last 25 years? If anything the lack of regulations when they started allowed them to become the de facto monopolies we all know today.

manigandham 7y ago
Some of those companies aren't even 25 years old. They didn't get toppled because they were the young upstarts growing into incumbents. The problem isn't supporting privacy and data rights, it's doing so in a way that creates unintended consequences which actually worsen the market and UX for consumers. There are better ways this regulation could've been written, but it wasn't. That's the issue.

iamaelephant 7y ago

> The problem is any regulation is that it increases the startup costs for smaller businesses. Why should this be the one thing we optimise for?

manigandham 7y ago
Where do you think jobs come from?
- hrktb 7y ago
  Businesses that don’t have security issues when handling private data, obviously. I agree with the GP, in that ease of starting companies should not be the primary goal, setting security and privacy on the back seat. It shouldn’t harder than it needs to, not easier at any cost.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    > It shouldn’t harder than it needs to This is what's happening though.
Mirioron 7y ago
Because if you do poorly on the small business front, then they can't grow into bigger businesses. How many EU tech companies do you know of compared to American ones?
- franciscop 7y ago
  Many, but I'm european so it probably doesn't count (; If you make it harder for companies for protecting people it's still a win. I recently visited SF, "the center of innovation" for the startup world. I saw 2 people defecating on the street in 2 weeks, countless peeing and had to jump over homeless at some points to walk the street. If that's the cost for startup and innovation, please don't bring it to EU.
  - 7y ago