I dare you to use this comment for anything. Dont even think about this comment

Can we just appreciate Europe for being lightyears ahead of the US? Good work EU.

Twitter just asked me if I'd like them to remove data they collected previously on me. Yes I would, thank you, and thanks EU.

what do you win by having twitter remove the data it has about you?

privacy. It's a weird question coming from a german.

Will jewgle and kikebook not now everything you do on your PC anyway?

well, I have no facebook at least

Same here :@

privacy for what? what does improve now? privacy is such an abstract term. what is now better than before?

well that's exactly the problem in describing it, it is an abstract term that contains in it a wide range of things, and yes, twitter having your data can impact all of them (a tiny bit). Demanding an exact improvement to be shown is a bit crass, it's like saying why do you need freedom of speech, give me an exact reason now for what you will use it. That's clearly a misunderstanding of how the right can be used, how it can be eroded, how it impacts me even if I never use it. It's a reason that it has to be argued against, not argued for.

There's various ways that businesses, criminals, governments and even the wider society can use data against you. Businesses can use advertisement which is already antagonistic in my mind (selling things through subconscious implications that are completely irrational, rather than showing the advantages of their products). Now they'll try to sell me cars when they suspect I've gotten a yearly bonus, sell me cookies when they know I'm likely to be at a certain blood sugar level and at my most impulsive. I see no reason to subject myself to those kinds of temptations, people make better decisions when they aren't constantly tempted to be impulsive. Businesses can also do varied pricing or offer different products (in pretty sly ways) knowing if I earn more money and all kinds of things that won't benefit the average consumer. Consumers could combat this in the free market, but frankly it requires a level of organization that is incredibly unlikely.

The data flows through companies that collect it without any shame from all over the web, buy it off of websites, place trackers in websites and apps that have no place collecting that kind of data which then sell it to everyone and their mother. There's really little protection for it, and it's "legitimate", legally speaking, to completely shamelessly profit from it. And of course, they all lie about their high security standards and then get hacked, because it's too easy. So, whatever companies acquire, other companies, criminals, governments and possibly wider society can acquire.

I hope I don't have to tell you about identity theft, the threat of criminals knowing your (or your kids') geolocation data, how much this info might help in hacking you or robbing your business or possibly simply blackmailing you using whatever embarrassing information.

Governments surveil people mostly by piggybacking on services like twitter. A malevolent government would be immeasurably dreadful with current technology. Western governments aren't like that, of course, but that's why constitutions and rights are there for, to protect us from a malevolent future government. Even without some great malevolence, governments routinely undermine people's rights by using surveilance. There's a long history of that in the west, look at the red scare in the US, at COINTELPRO, at protesters being surveiled and intimidated. There are so many angles at this, from people becoming more likely to be docile just because of the possibility of being surveiled to governments undermining our security and privacy because it will allow them more surveilance (basic phone lines are now insecure and politicians have been surveiled because the government needed to be able to surveil that so didn't support fixing them, that's one exammple). The effectiveness of this surveilance has been repeatedly debunked, shown to be a waste of money and a threat to liberties and security, yet tell people 'think of the children' and they will cave. I don't come at this from some insane Alex Jones perspective or something, I've read security experts, historians and philosophers talk about various aspects of this. The potential and history of undermining protesters, activists, politicians is there. We don't need to get to 1984 to care about it. Joseph Stalin would have loved it more than anything, but NSA loves it too.

You might think this doesn't concern the average person like me, but that's not how the right to privacy nor data works. You can't only give rights to some people, then there will be a path to deny the rights to whoever needs them. You also cannot let almost everyone's data out there and only journalists, whistleblowers and politicians have privacy. It's like having a transparent house with one untransparent room, it gives you nothing. And you can't have everyone with a backlog of data then somehow have whistleblowers not having them bite their ass when data leaks of them liking hentai and being rude to their family or having watched white nationalist videos 10 years ago or quoted out of context or whatever, it's inevitable that that will happen if the data is there.

With society again, data inevitably leaks (anyone with a clue in this area will tell you that it does) and you can't exactly tell people that it's not their business and your employer shouldn't care that you watch hentai and spend your time with 15 dildos at home, don't have any friends or have medical and mental issues. It's a smart business move to find a way to let you go at that point. You might think this is far-fetched, of course people aren't looking employees up on a massive scale, but the data is out there, some of it is used, more and more is being pooled and obviously more and more of this will happen. It's a darker version of asking for your facebook, which companies already do, and some even ask for your login.

Socially people can be subject to various online harrassment campaigns, have their private data sent to their family, friends and employees (one friend had that happen to him and got a demand for money), and what they did doesn't have to be bad, it just has to be disapproved of in certain sectors of society. All kinds of options. Again, my rather vanilla data isn't all that interesting, but having less data on me and my pro-privacy stance helps protect others in that "black room". From the accusation that they only want privacy because they are horrible people as a start.

These are some reasons to care about online privacy. There's a long history of scholarship and writing on this, I highly recommend this essay by a law professor https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 as well as the book "Data and Goliath" by Bruce Schneier. Excellent reads, really few people have a good grasp of the issue until they read up about it IMO.

this answer is huuuuge. took me a while to find the time. ^^

summarized you find it good because you do not like advertisement and because you fear abuse.

1. give advertisement a chance. advertisement is useful. very useful. advertisement does not need to use cheap mind tricks. its the people that needs them. so if you think that advertisement is lame you just found out that you are different from most of the people.

2. the abuse will happen when its time for the abuse to happen. you cannot do anything about that. and you need to consider that rules work best regarding the lower people in the chain. the higher up the chain somebody is the less a rule works. those who have power are able to bend the rules to their will. thus gdpr makes it more difficult but more so for the small than for the big ones. it creates some kind of monopolisation of the thing the gdpr wants to prevent to those with power. which is unfavourable for the little people like you and me. if everybody was able to do it in the same amount it would be much healthier imo.

plus the world would be confronted a lot more with something that inevitable will overtake it anyway. in the future the data will flow without only very little exceptions. only the powerful or the rebels will be able to hide. but even in this future you will be neither of them.

thinking gdpr is good is like thinking that you would live a better life when the stardust somewhere in the universe was arranged differently. thats why i asked you which improvements you gained. you think its the arrangement of the stardust that will improve your life. plus you dont like advertisement, just because it is not suited for you. thus you want to ban it from this world. its like when you mother does something that you dont like and you want her to vanish.

for me it sucks that i cannot see the names of my opponents on qlstats anymore. improvements nothing so far.

It's a little hard for me to get something out of your post. You're making general claims and I don't really see any reason to accept them other than that a guy online thinks that, which isn't enough.

1. What benefit is there for me to give my "mindspace" to advertisements which try to insert associations of excellence or luxury or other irrelevant things into my mind about products which I simply don't need? I need that space in my brain for other things. If I want to buy something, I will look at the actual specifications of the products.

It is specifically the cheap mind tricks that I'm objecting to, that and the lack of possibility for avoiding the ads. I simply don't see what is the benefit for seeing them over not seeing them.

I don't really know if most people like or dislike ads, but that wouldn't necessarily change my opinion.

2. I don't get this point at all. I've been following this kind of abuse all over, and how much it happens and what kind it is absolutely depends on what data is out there, including data that is limited by GDPR. I have to ask - did you consider the actual kinds of data that will not be out there after GDPR, and are now claiming that it won't make a difference out of a considered position that it won't change a thing? I could give examples, but to me it doesn't really look like you're coming from a position of knowledge about this, so I'm not sure it would make a difference. It absolutely does not seem the case that GDPR somehow only changes the data procedures of small companies. Because it already has changed the rules for big companies.

3. Note that it is exactly an advantage of data, not data itself that is valuable. Google's project is mostly valuable because they have an advantage, not simply because they have X amount of data. Which means that this is literally making the advantage smaller by allowing people to choose if they want google to have that data or not, it can allow exoduses from companies and shifts in who has the advantage. Prior, if they had the data it was it, it was their pile of gold they can just sit on. So this is one argument against your point about this helping big companies.

4.

plus the world would be confronted a lot more with something that inevitable will overtake it anyway. in the future the data will flow without only very little exceptions.

I've even seen arguments claiming that this need for an advantage in data will be the downfall of companies like Google - because at some point, commercially that won't be of use. At some point, more data about your car preferences won't make you any more likely to buy a car, it's already comprehensive enough. At that point, advantage will be impossible and thus the whole model depending on an advantage will collapse.

Why do you think that people will have all the data, anyway? I get that more and more data is available, but more and more people are also seeing the issues with that, and demanding various things to protect them from that. Major IM applications now have E2E encryption, some even seem to not collect much of anything in terms of metadata, companies are facing blowback for bad data practices and GDPR just went into effect. I don't think it's enough but it's evidently gaining steam. Clearly, it's not just going one direction.

is it not possible for advertisment to be liked by you?

I can find particular ads entertaining and there is a very small chance that I'd be recommended a product that would be a good choice for me.

But that just cannot make up for all the time and "mindspace" lost by viewing and hearing ads. If I was a cyborg and could replace ads with a white overlay and disable their audio, I would, gladly. I'd view them on purpose on very rare occasions just to understand them, but that's completely different from finding value in themselves

there is a small chance. ;D

can you follow me if i claim that if there is a small chance it may be possible that when every advertisement was like that there would be a big chance?

Would this be a good or a bad thing?

If you're talking about a theoretical system that doesn't pray on me at my weakest (selling me donuts when my blood sugar is the right amount), only shows up when I want it (so won't waste my time when I would prefer to be reading ESR) and doesn't have any of the privacy disadvantages (the data won't leak, it's only on my PC..), etc...

we seem to be describing a recommendation system that is in local in my PC, which I give data to when I choose. Sure, that can be neat!

However it seems like you're talking of modern advertisement just with more data and better algorithms. It will still want to sell more than I want to buy, to upsell, to sell to me at my weakest, to waste my time when I'd prefer to be reading ESR, to sell me using subconcious desires rather than rational needs, to have my data which will then leak or be given to states, all of this without an obvious choice on my end. I don't see how it could ever match up my rational needs!

Wouldn't you like to skip all of the advertisement you see and just replace a tiny percentage of it with research you do when you need products? Spend the rest of the time with family, friends or doing hobbies?

"Wouldn't you like to skip all of the advertisement you see and just replace a tiny percentage of it with research you do when you need products? Spend the rest of the time with family, friends or doing hobbies?"

yess and i know that advertisement has a distance to walk. things need to be improved. by people.

do you think its better for them if they have more tools or less?

But I've given you ways in which they don't look like they'll improve. What reason is there to burden all of the cost when it won't improve in those fronts? Why would it ever improve in those fronts, and how are you brushing away all the costs in time, privacy etc while it attempts to improve... a bit?

"If you're talking about a theoretical system that doesn't pray on me at my weakest (selling me donuts when my blood sugar is the right amount)"

why is it bad when advertisement give you the knowledge about a solution that could fulfil your needs? why is it bad that when your blood sugar is low and you need to know how to change it when there is advertisement coming around and give you solutions to your problem?

and how is advertisement to know what your needs are if they are not allowed to know anything about you?

what do you prefer? tailored advertisement or to watch at every shit that you don't care about?

It won't give me the healthy thing that costs as much as it needs, it will give me the unhealthy snack that my low blood sugar self craves. It will also give me the one that paid the most for advertisement. Why would it ever give the best thing for me? I can have my doctor tell me what it is and maky my smartwatch or whatever notify me, hey you might want this now. Advertisers will never have my needs first in mind, why would they.

I prefer when it's irrelevant, it's easier to ignore then, but the bigger question is - why not nothing? What's bad with that?

"It won't give me the healthy thing that costs as much as it needs, it will give me the unhealthy snack that my low blood sugar self craves."

this claim is simply not true. its over exaggerated childishness. you describe the people who advertise as some evil entity which always just wants to hurt you. and you think the new rules will finally do something about this. we need all the superheros of marvel to end this evil reign.

"Advertisers will never have my needs first in mind, why would they."

they need to if there are consumers that are intelligent enough to know what they need and what they don't.

"why not nothing?"

we live in a society that is based on trading. this creates dependencies which brings people together and which ends wars. how to trade if you are not allowed to talk about what you have to offer?

this claim is simply not true. its over exaggerated childishness. you describe the people who advertise as some evil entity which always just wants to hurt you.

Please, interpret it more charitably! I'm clearly talking about the fact that advertisements tend to push more unhealthy food than healthy food. It's also the kind that you're more likely to sell with an advertisement for many many reasons, like it having more sugar and various unhealthy additives, due to the fact that it can more often be unique and have brand value. You can't make as many high margin brands of tomatoes as you can of candy. And people will be more impulsive about buying candy.

Nothing to do with their being evil, they simply care about profit, and that is different from caring about my wellbeing. Not opposite, but sometimes detrimental to it. And they even tell the consumers (due to regulations) that they should take limited amounts, far less than what an average consumer eats. Being blasted advertisements contributes to this.

Do you actually deny that advertisements on average push worse food than what people would buy? Engage with this point, not some "you think ad companies are evil" strawman.

and you think the new rules will finally do something about this. we need all the superheros of marvel to end this evil reign.

They'll do more about privacy than that, this is a smaller part of the advantage to the legislation. And you haven't engaged with that, just given conclusions without serious arguments. I gave you a book that details how a lack of privacy damages us, even. You don't have to read it if you don't want, but you're dogmatic if you have a strong opinion before educating yourself.

they need to if there are consumers that are intelligent enough to know what they need and what they don't.

Consumers ate tide pods. They buy cigarettes that kill them and food that makes them unhealthy. They buy shiny things from companies with big marketing budgets over things with objectively better specifications. This is the world we live in, there is some rationality, but ads purposefully work against it, and people tend to be more irrational than not about most purchases. If you were correct, ads would be dry, objective presentments of specifications of products, and consumers would scoff at and boycott companies that do ads where the product is associated with luxury or sex or status. But in fact that's how most ads tend to work. So you're lviing in a fictional world if you think better ads tend to be more rational purchases, that is simply not the case.

we live in a society that is based on trading. this creates dependencies which brings people together and which ends wars. how to trade if you are not allowed to talk about what you have to offer?

I guess in this fictional world you'd still have mouth-to-mouth information spreading around, and people would look at various websites ranking products and giving reviews. Reviews unpaid from the industry don't count as ads! So I don't see consumerism and capitalism collapsing.

This is high fiction though. Even if I granted you this point, it wouldn't make me want to see more personalized ads or simply more ads for myself. You're not at all showing how it's to my benefit.

I'm clearly talking about the fact that advertisements tend to push more unhealthy food than healthy food.

You still talking about advertisement if it was an animal which has its own characteristic. You are oversimplifying which leads you to conclusions which are dumb. I dont say that you are dumb though.

You need to see that the face of advertisement is born through a system iwhich consists of different variables and rules. If the variables change, new rules are born, old rules die then the face of advertisement changes.

You are talking about an angry over exaggerated bad face of advertisement which could be a leading motto for angry people going on the streets to demonstrate. Now you are happy that the new rules strike against your made up enemy.

Do you actually deny that advertisements on average push worse food than what people would buy?

Advertisement like everything else on this world will take advantage on weaknesses. It's this world and you cannot invent ine where it is different.

They'll do more about privacy than that, this is a smaller part of the advantage to the legislation. And you haven't engaged with that

I did not want to start too many topics at once. We can get to that once we are done with advertisement.

I live in a world where people have longterm preferences and shortterm actions. Generally I consider the longterm preferences to be their "rational wish" and their shortterm actions to be a kind of irrationality if they're out of line with the longterm preferences in significant ways.

From this PoV, social science can tell us how things impact us, bringing us closer to or farther from those rational longterm goals. I judge that the effects of advertisement are, to my knowledge, more so in the farther from category.

You criticize my view as somehow anthropromorphizing advertisement, but I'm simply look at its effects in the real world. I don't necessarily see you giving a competing vision of how to judge whether ads are negative or positive, only hinting at it:

Advertisement like everything else on this world will take advantage on weaknesses.

This sounds kind of like an endorsement of absolute human will and suggestion to pull yourself by the bootsraps if you don't like how things are going. Is that roughly accurate? If so, I find my view of trying to look at how advertisements affect people and seeing whether people like the final effects or not longterm to be a more reasonable view of the world rather than what you imply here.

It's this world and you cannot invent ine where it is different.

But again, GDPR just did! Now you can have advertsiement be (and by default too) less targeted, because you can tell them to delete or keep less data. So it looks like we just invented this world! Yay EU. I still care more about the privacy side, but this is neat too.

I did not want to start too many topics at once. We can get to that once we are done with advertisement.

Fair enough, note that privacy is really the more important part of this legislation, but I'm happy to talk ads too.

From this PoV, social science can tell us how things impact us, bringing us closer to or farther from those rational longterm goals.

Longterm goals seem to be somewhat more rational. But ;) once you reached your long term goal it may be possible that it does not have the desired effect. Although more rational it still was wrong.

What i want to say is that you cannot possibly know that if your alternative version of reality would have the desired effects. Maybe your version is worse. You cannot measure if one version is superior to the other because you would require a second universe with which you would be able to compare.

I think the system of society is too complex to make well founded assumptions about if it was better with or without.

The assumed effects are certainly there but i think you cannot say that if they were not there then the world would better place.

thats why i like to think of the world at being in a certain state of development. I dont judge if a thing is worse than another one because how do i want to know how the history of humankind will develop. Would it have been better for europe if Napolean had not neen there? How would i know? Now you are standing here and tell me that the world would be better without advertisement.

Maybe the thought that the world could be better if just this and that was different is just wrong. You need to build things up and they require a certain order of things that need to happen.so if you explore the effects of advertisement you should more understand it like its in a certain state right now. Advertisement is like this and that -> mankind is in state AFG13.

But You judge it and you think its in the wrong state. You read books and then you jugde the world. dont misunderstand, i am not saying that the things in the books are wrong. I just would.be more careful to know what is better and whats worse.

Longterm goals seem to be somewhat more rational. But ;) once you reached your long term goal it may be possible that it does not have the desired effect. Although more rational it still was wrong.

Sure! I'm fine with such more complicated accounts for what is "good" for us. I still hold that what I said probably holds true for most such reasonable accounts of what is "good for us".

rest

It's fair enough to say that I can't be that sure about what would happen if advertisement didn't exist. Sure, there could be complications. There's definitely that chance.

I think it's quite different for much less grandiose things, like GDPR, like me adblocking ads, like disabling tracking on particular websites. I hold that my claims about the benefits of viewing less ads and not having the whole machine of personalized ads set against you, with all the time, "mindspace" and privacy losses that they give. I think there's good evidence for that. I very confident about privacy. I havent' researched the science of the effects of ads, if you want to challenge me on that it could be interesting. I do still expect my understanding to be reasonably in the right direction in terms of how viewing more or less ads, and having more or less of them personalized, affects people.

Edit: Note that I really care much more about privacy, and thus the personalization of ads that affects it than the ads themselves.

Here is a good exemple of who realy like europe : poor east european countries that get our money from EU (that also don't realy likes us).

That's why brexit is good, frexit and italia and germanyleaving soon too.

Good point.

Okay, someone tell me why do I need to get all these emails from every company ever created and why jews at Brussels are doing it?
What is their end game?

non-bendy bananas

My god...
: _ :7

non-crooked cucumbers
non-incandescent lightbulbs

Do you want *communism*?

Because that's how you get *communism*

Do you even have to ask?

gg Lenin

TL;DR

Automatic opt out of pretty much EVERY website you've opt'd in to in the past.

Good cuz, no more spam emails about xyz products.

Bad cuz now when you do sign up to newer products and/or services you have to choose what you want to opt in to and how you'd like them to contact you.

Good cuz you can request 90% of services that store your data to clear or delete certain types of data within 30 days of your initial request of it.

Bad cuz (unless you like cookies and shit) now you don't get that tailored experience on a few social media platforms.

Bad because of whois issues. But great in so, so many other aspects.

Yeah I mean people are stressing like mad right now about it, kind of like how everyone was all over that PPI bandwagon here in the UK and probably most of the other first world countries.

whois issues?

it's a big debate https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/02/new-eu-pr...-security/

Any privacy enhancing law, measure or technology worth its salt will in some form also help criminals evade being tracked or surveilled. That's a sign that it's good and not just some bureaucratic paper tiger. The question is how far do we go.

Yep.

Oh boy!

https://www.reddit.com/r/QuakeChampions/comme..._redshell/