Good. I always saw the intention of the GDPR as legislation to fundamentally change the way personal data is processed, to prevent the freely spreading of it, with blatant disregard to the consequences, by basically any company that handles personal data. Instead most companies have just opted for clickwrap consent, and continued as they always have.
The more rulings we have like this, the better. Yes it may cause some business models to disappear, but I feel it's worth it to take back control of our privacy.
I hate the "cookie law" for this very reason. It just resulted in more popups which became at best white noise, at worst a genuine annoyance for users. Cookie-consent popups are a part of most ad-blockers, which should make you think.
Instead, the end result should be less abuse and hoarding of data. In other words, ad services should be held accountable for what they collect, not just inform users that they collect your data. Cookies are actually the one thing you can control, it's in your browser, it's not the problem, you can block or delete the data. What should be regulated are what companies store server-side and how they connect that data and that should be done between the government and the companies, not between the company and its users who might not have the expertise and, in many cases, are stuck with some quasi-monopoly like Google or Facebook.
GDPR is not about cookies and it’s not about mere informing of users, but about getting consent for data processing. Publishers and service providers are required to ask for consent, with clear language and the default is opt-out.
Also from what I understand you can’t block users from using your service when they opt out of any data purpose that isn’t legitimate and the definition of legitimate data purposes is very narrow. For example it doesn’t really matter that ads profiling is how the company makes revenue, making more money is not a legitimate interest.
Some companies, like Facebook, are of course trying to resist this. But I’m pretty sure they’ll end up with big fines.
On popups, IAB’s specification uses the consensu.org domain for the cookie, so that consent can be shared between multiple domains. A publisher cannot share that consent with other publishers in case the list of partners used is custom of course, but you can still share it between your own domains. The purpose being to minimize the popups.
Given that publishers have a legal obligation to get the user’s consent, I strongly believe that ad-blockers blocking GDPR popups is legal trouble for both publishers and ad-blockers.
Blocking ads wasn’t deemed illegal thus far and it wasn’t for a lack of trying. Blocking GDPR pop-ups on the other hand will imo not have that same fate.
Also some users will legitimately want to have their data used for personalization and you can’t regulate against that.
This might be an unpopular opinion however given the choice between personalized ads and a paywall, I predict that most people will choose personalized ads.
Of course. But if you recall when you first learned about information security, it would likely involve cookies. Probably the general population is going through that kind of adolescent awakening that we did when we were 10 or so, they just took longer because they sit on the shortbus in comparison.
> Yes it may cause some business models to disappear, but I feel it's worth it to take back control of our privacy.
Good, hopefully we'll see some real innovation, with wide spread micropayments, rather than brainwashing which costs the viewer of the site far more than the recipient of the site gets.
I think micropayments are a classic example of a solution that seems sensible to engineering under the assumption that humans are rational beings, but in the real world it falls apart because they aren't.
The hardest part of making a sale isn't the price--it's getting the customer to say yes. With micropayments you ask the customer to say yes every time they click a link. This imposes a cognitive/mood/whatever penalty every time they consider viewing your content. No wonder it hasn't taken off.
A better solution from a market psychology standpoint would be to sell an all access pass to the content on 10, 100, or 1000 websites. Monthly auto rebill. Just one purchase decision for life and with enough sites the perceived value is high. Not sure why we aren't seeing more of this -- if anyone works at a media conglomerate feel free to reply :)
I know I am worth ~50$ a year to the Ad business. I'll gladly pay $60 a year for access to content. That $60 gets redistributed to content providers based on the share of my viewership they get.
Basically, cut the middle man (ad companies in this case).
How can you know that? I remember back in high school I made a few flash games, that was the only time I ever got a few ECPM mesure of every countries, and I could get up to 10$ per 1000 views from the US. It did include video ads though.
Let stay conservative and say 3$ per 1000 views. I heard of plenty of people that make more and that's including what Google take out of it. There's no way you only see 20 000 pages a year. It's at least 5-6 times that amount of page.
Ads are also amazing by the fact that they still pay even though you are underage and can't get a credit card. My passion of software engineering wouldn't have been fulfilled if it wasn't from all the free resource. I learned from Site du Zéro, I was there pretty early when they started, I've seen the website owner going from nothing to building an amazing company. Now they no longer depends on ads, so that's good, but that's only because me seeing their ads at the being was enough for them to work full time on it.
20000 pages a year comes to 54 a day every single day. 5-6 times that amount would be 250-300 pages a day. I don’t think many people read that much.
Also note that this is in the context of the typically more valuable video ads. On eg YouTube if you say 1 ad per 10 minutes it would take 9 hours of video watching per day to rack up 54 ads.
I don’t know what rate of ads one can expect from a mobile game but maybe it would be more. I think you would still likely need several hours to get so many. And presumably you want to play less if there are more frequent ads.
Anyone on Hacker News read much more than 250-300 pages a day. Just casually browsing on Hacker News would give a few dozens (multiple pages, looking at comments, going to the actual page). Any software engineer will look at reference on the web. I regularly reach 1000 pages a day myself at works (verified using a Chrome extension) and it doesn't take into account my usage over my phone.
> On eg YouTube if you say 1 ad per 10 minutes it would take 9 hours of video watching per day to rack up 54 ads.
Video ads pay much more, as I said, they can go up to 10$ for 1000 views and that's not included the ad provider part.
And you only need to get everyone on the planet who wants to sell content to participate in the network and agree to standardized compensation. It's the same type of issue as with blockchain for supply chains, etc. Everyone needs to participate or it doesn't really work. It can work--it's been reasonably well worked out in music--but that's arguably a more standardized product.
The thing is someone in our community is probably worth $500 a year to the ad business whereas 90% of people are worth nothing. Would you be willing to pay $600 a year to access content, what happens to the other 90% who couldn't afford that. What media would they be condemned to consume.
If you really want to be socially inclusive, raise taxes on those that can afford to pay (wealthy pensioners are massively undertaxed in the UK for instance), and distribute it as "consumer tokens", or cash, that people can spend on consuming crap.
I actually doubt someone in our community is worth that much. If anything, we're worth less than non-tech-savvy people because we see through the bullshit (when we don't outright block it) where as they don't.
A friend of mine recently fell prey to a scam ad on Facebook and they got some money off her. I have yet to buy anything from an online ad in my entire life; so she is actually a much better investment than I am in terms of ad spend.
> because we see through the bullshit (when we don't outright block it) where as they don't.
Sounds like the "marketing doesn't work on me cuz I'm so smart" fallacy, which usually means you're getting hacked by a different type of marketing.
Getting the eyes of wealthy target demographic -- and IT/CS/Dev/STEM folks qualifies -- is definitely worth $$$, the only question is if it's $500 or lower (or higher?). I used to have clients who existed to target the hyper-wealthy, and they made cash hand over fist schlepping details about those folks.
$500 bucks for semi-personalized deets about FAANG devs making $300k+ makes sense, and you can find those people on HN for sure.
My preferred marketing vulnerability is Consumer Reports- or Wirecutter-style. They're making money off marketing things to me, but they're not dependent on any particular brand, so I can feel reasonably confident that I'll be happy with the results.
It's $5/mo even for the limited list of sites participating (already $60/mo). I suppose removing ads everywhere by paying web sites the amount advertisers from all networks pay them would cost several times as much.
It's a sensible way of having content creators get paid, but I'm not particularly comfortable with Google watching what websites I visit, which is necessary so they can dole out the cash.
What's worked for me is a combination of aggressive ad-and-tracker-blocking and subscribing to the print versions of content I enjoy.
I haven't read into Contributor to see if they are even claiming that in the first place (the homepage doesn't mention anything about it, and I don't feel "tracking" and "ads" are the same thing at all, even if many conflate them to be).
But assuming they are promising that paying for Contributor would remove you from all tracking (whatever that means), wouldn't it be a pretty big deal (both legally and ethically) if it was found that they are still tracking you while saying they explicitly won't?
Obviously tracking required to run the service would be excluded (they need to know who you are to take money from you in the US, and they need to "track" your identity to tell that you are the person paying for that service), but don't they already have plenty of controls over how they use your personal information, regardless of whether you are paying for Contributor or not?
Sure, they could stand to make them more obvious, but I get asked all the time to double-check my privacy settings with google, I get asked if I want to enable personalized ads when I'm setting up a new Android phone, and the page where you go to turn it off is a single toggle switch.
Now ad networks and sites bid for the amount to charge for ads shown in an ad slot on a web site.
They can equally bid for the amount to charge from a customer directly. If your payment for not seeing an ad outbids ad networks, you don't see the ad.
E.g. imagine that you agree to pay up to 5¢ automatically for visiting a page is the site asks for it, up to 15¢ per session. If the required sum is above it, you get notified (pay or not). You can configure your browser according to your tastes: accept larger charges from particular sites, always decline any paid pages from some other sites, bid for removal of video ads more aggressively than for static text ads, etc.
A clearinghouse company should handle this the same way an ad network would. Viewers would put some money to their account, and that would be written off in larger transactions e.g. weekly (dollars, not cents).
I believe such solutions were tried in the past, but did not work too well. I suppose most people value their attention much lower than hard cash.
just spread a virus... or chrome extension which keep querying your websites
there is no way to implement this with technology in a reasonable manner unless you monitor every action every user does at any time. which would be (at least in my opinion) worse.
I believe it is about price. Even relatively well off demographic here seems to think 20 bucks a month enough to get top 10 newspapers and magazines. This number is simply unworkable for high quality newspapers. Just like some people are dreaming about an aggregate streaming service which would be 20-30 dollars a month and can cover Netflix, Disney and myriad others.
Internet has given power to people to issue veiled threats that one has to give content to users at price they deem sufficient else users would simply pirate and pay nothing.
One way to do it would be that the first time I visit a proper article on guardian.com (not something 5 lines long which would acts as a loss leader), I get told "indepth articles cost 20p. Click to authorise upto £2 (dropdown for ". Then I don't get asked until after I've read 10 in depth articles. The payment site would have to track if I've read that article before to avoid recharging me, but that's fine, I'd agree to that (if I don't agree then I have to pay each time). I could get a monthly statement, and clear my past logs from a trivial interface (wipe this artcile, wipe this site, wipe all older than x days, etc)
I hit "yes" or "no", and don't hear about it until I've read those 20 articles. Something built into my browser could act as the middle man, taking 10% of that fee and sending the rest to the article's creator. Firefox could put in an infrastructure to plug in easilly enough. You could even allow payment via bitcoin to get VCs happy.
That was Clay Shirky’s argument years ago during the first round of micropayments startups. While we do deal with micropayments in one sense every time we flip on a light switch and used to do so for phone calls, it feels different somehow for reading articles. We don’t want to have to ask ourselves if something is worth 10 cents every time we click a link.
In which case you'd blacklist the site. You'd pay for the first article (you're paying right now through your consumption of brainwashing), but you wouldn't fall for that twice.
I think it fails fundamentally from a market perspective - you don't know what is truly in it until you agree. Browsing while met with grumbles by merchants is essential.
Toll gating inherently adds friction to a process whose whole damn point is being low friction - marginal costs per person and free to reference around.
A rational solution would be to pay for what you like but people really aren't trained that way or lack the resources relatively. I suspect "microwork" could work better for viewers with little money and even then it is still a friction akin to annoying ads that drives people away.
Yes. That's how capitalism works. You have to compete in the market.
> With micropayments you ask the customer to say yes every time they click a link.
Yes - do you think you should be able to sell them additional products without getting the buy's permission? That "conative penalty" is the difference between an ethical transaction approved by both sides, and a scam, fraud, or strong-arm tactic such as bundling or abusive contracts of adhesion.
> This imposes a cognitive/mood/whatever penalty every time they consider viewing your content
Yes, consumers are empowered to more buy specifically what they want, and nothing more.
Or, you could try a new business model that avoids some of this penalty in new, innovative ways.
> sell an all access pass to the content on 10, 100, or 1000 websites
That bundles together products that someone does not want into the same payment for the products they do want. This is the same market distortion that the cable companies use, which people have been walking away from over the last ~decade.
When buyers are empowered to bypass market distortions like bundling, product prices are able to move closer to their actual value. For some products that value is zero. That's a signal that it's time to find a better product to sell, not a reason to undermine the core mechanism of capitalism by removing consumer choice.
Do you pay for news? I do and I can tell you there is literally no way I'm going to do a per-article payment test.
In fact, what I want I already have. The WSJ will bundle (yes, bundle) all its articles into a single monthly fee. The Economist happily does the same.
If, for some reason, these guys decided to switch me to pay-per-article I just wouldn't read them. That's too much of a cost. I can't afford it. Time is too precious for this nonsense.
I see this on HN a LOT, but I am really not sure it's a great model. The thing about ad-supported revenue is that you can still consume the content if you can't afford it.
I'm simplifying a little, but the people who convert on ads are basically subsidizing the content for the rest of us. In our society the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy and the people who fall into the latter group may or not be.
But the point is that with micropayments only the rich have access, and with ad-supported revenue everyone has access. I think most people prefer the latter.
> In our society the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy and the people who fall into the latter group may or not be.
[citation needed]. Telemarketing used to target people who could only barely afford it, and well educated, well earning folks from the younger generation tend to be tech savvy. The ones who don't know what's up are either old or uneducated (poor.)
That's at least a counter hypothesis if not outright refutation of your claim, since I don't actually know any of the numbers here myself.
Yea but they could afford it, ethically that sucks but they still had the money to spend.
Have you ever wanted to buy something small and literally didn't have the money in your account? This is how a huge number of people live, every day, day to day. Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it.
> the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy
now you say "yeah okay it sucks ethically", and shift the goal posts to something else entirely, from "wealth" to "they could buy it"? You're playing fast and loose with the exploitation, both financially and mentally, of others.
You can't just ignore the costs of exploitation of people who buy shit they can't afford because their life sucks, and the sheer pollution of minds by advertisement, all the needlessly created "needs", too, because they can't be easily quantified.
> Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it.
So, social services in a country could confirm that a person is actually on welfare. If they are, sites can make certain things free for them, and/or others can donate a small share (10%?) of their micropayments to those who have nothing. That's not a fleshed out suggestion, just the first thing from the top off my head. Allow people to sign up to get a few free articles per month. Before you say it can't be done, show us you thought about it at all. You're also implying that the best or all the essential content would be micropayment content, which is a huge assumption.
>But the point is that with micropayments only the rich have access, and with ad-supported revenue everyone has access. I think most people prefer the latter.
As a a counter to that, I've been watching 3blue1brown's maths videos on Patreon. Payments get you early access to content, but everything gets posted up eventually and it seems preferable to having ads.
I think the "tip model" could be greatly expanded. The reason it doesn't work as well now is because for one the ad revenue model exists, and when a system already dominates, people tend to stop looking for alternatives or embrace new ones.
Why bother to educate people to donate money when you can just put ads on your content? Also, when 99.9% of content-makers use ads, it means you have a much smaller pool of potential donors, too. When most users on the internet can donate and are used to donating, it becomes much easier to receive donations for any random piece of content.
And second, there's great friction in the existing micro-tip model, because the payment companies take big portions out of the small tips. Plus, there's quite a bit of fragmentation as not everyone has a PayPal account, or Apple account, or Google Contributor account, or Amazon account, etc.
I think cryptocurrencies will eventually solve this issue, if what we've seen so far with Steemit.com, d.tube, and others like them is any indication of that. Once people get into any cryptocurrency at all, the liquidity of tips greatly increases, and it becomes much easier to tip someone with a cryptocurrency. It's still in the super-early stages, though. It could take another 10 years before this becomes more mainstream.
I don't really see any other way for this to work. The Google Contributor or even Flattr models will not work because they are not decentralized and interoperable enough with others like them. You'll never see the majority of people on the web use Google Contributor or Flattr. It needs to be an ecosystem of such services that all integrate and interoperate with no friction and content creators can be paid with any of them. The tipping model needs to be more like email than Apple iMessage, so that everyone can have one and use it with any other similar system.
He is absolutely correct. Wealthy in that you have access to ten dollars discretionary to spend per month. A friend of mine is from India and got into programming through free content with ads on the page.
Imagine people for whom a dollar is a lot, who have no credit card to link into your system, who have no money to buy your stuff and no way to buy it even if they had the money. Even a $0.01 charge would be impossible because they simply don't have the tool necessary to buy your stuff over the Internet.
I mourn the Internet that included people like them.
When I saw wealthy, I mean they have money to spend on the product they're buying. Money or access to credit or whatever. This is absolutely true as someone is buying stuff driven through marketing.
A huge percentage of the people who don't buy are doing so not because the ads aren't effective, but because they don't have money to purchase. With a micropayment model those people just won't look at the content, because they don't have money in their account to do so.
Ha yeah we all pay for the marketing campaigns regardless. Its factored into the price of every product you buy. The money for internet ads doesn't just spawn out of the ether.
I think something like the concept of reddit gold can work on the content/news sites as well. At its core, its about the ones who liked/found the content useful can reward it with some payment.
Usually, in most of the business models, your most heavy users tend to subsidize/bear the cost of not so heavy but casual users. At the very core that is. For adverts it fails, since the heavy users are of less value than the casual ones. (how many times you can show the same ad to a user? Also, they are well trained on how to look past the ads).
With gold-like concept, great content is rewarded, and incentivized as well. Also, given the scale of reddit, it works really well (along with ads) but not too sure how well it will work with ad dependent publications.
Micropayments aren't a problem on the user end, they're a problem almost entirely on the distribution end. We have existing successful models of the user side, chief of which is taxes. The problem is that an ideal solution would feature one or a couple of players that would cover the distribution to all creators on the entire Internet. I.e. as a user, I want to set this system up once, and forget about it. But as long as people will keep competing to be a main payment gateway, each starting with their own slice of the Internet, users won't come.
Micropayment does not work on user end because the number of times it prompts the users. Example[1]. For me, it hinders the experience of reading. This would be even more problematic on the sites I have been on for the first time.
The problem with one player covering costs for all publishers is the monopoly it brings. Also, sounds more like cable, where there is a cost to access 100s of sites on the internet. Moreover, the users are not convinced to pay for one site they use, do you think they will be convinced to pay/donate for 100s of sites they have not even heard of? If it is forced as a package, then it is exactly like cable.
I am not saying it cant work, but would require a lot of work to convince the users to pay. Also you are covering for not just the server costs, but publication's staff costs, business costs, which vary over time. With just one time lifetime payment, they are in a bound themselves.
> Good, hopefully we'll see some real innovation, with wide spread micropayments
Micropayments raise difficult tax issues, especially for small sites.
In the United States, for example, if I've counted correctly 34 states require or will require by early 2019 out of state sellers of goods or services into the state to collect, report, and remit that state's sales tax. Another 13 states could do so, but have not yet amended their laws to require it [1]. 4 have no sales tax at all. (I'm counting DC as a state here).
Whether or not a state actually can force this on a given seller depends on whether or not the seller has a "nexus" with the state. 24 states' laws say you have a nexus if you have 200 sales a year in the state or sales in a year totaling $100k.
With micropayments, a site could hit 200 sales in a state easily and have to deal with sales tax, while only earning a small amount of revenue. For example, suppose your site accepted micropayments for reading articles. Say you did $0.05 per article. If 200 people in a "200 or $100k state" bought articles, that would $10 revenue.
Congratulations...you have to collect tax on that! Worse, tax depends on exactly where the person lives in the state. You have to get their address, and lookup the tax based on that. Going just by state, or even just by zip code within the state, is not sufficient as you might collect too little [2]. You also have to file quarterly tax reports, which have a filing fee in most states, which will almost certainly swamp your $10 revenue.
There are services you can use to do this for you. 24 states have banded together and formed a Streamlines Sales Tax group (SST), letting you register and file and remit taxes for all 24 through a single entity, and they have agreed to provide tax data (rates and tax district boundaries) in a common file format. Even better, if you agree to collect tax for all 24 of those states, then the states will pay the costs of you using any of several third party tax services companies (Avalara, TaxCloud, TaxJar, and a few others), including the costs of using those company's APIs to handle all the lookups up and calculation, and the costs of preparing and filing the reports.
Unfortunately, there are some big states that are not part of SST. California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, New York for example. CA, TX, and NY don't collect on out of state sellers (yet), but those others do.
Avalara, TaxCloud, TaxJar, etc., can handle those states for you too, but that won't be free. TaxCloud, for example, if you use their "automatic compliance" plan, which requires collecting tax in all the SST states (so that the SST states pay TaxCloud), you can add non-SST states for 0.5% (less for large volume sellers) of your revenue in each such state, and that will cover address verification, tax lookups, reports, and filing. (No affiliation with TaxCloud. I just happen to be using them for my first attempt to get our site at work to handle out of state US sales taxes--before we had just been collecting for sales in our own state and collecting VAT for EU sales. VAT is vastly simpler since it is per country, and the EU has something equivalent to the US Streamlined Sales Tax called VAT MOSS, so VAT was pretty trivial to deal with without needing an outside service).
Anyway, all of the above probably will dampen interest at a lot of sites. Especially having to collect address information to calculate the tax. That raises privacy issues that I think many will find more troubling than the current ad site privacy issues.
[1] It was only in the middle of this year that it became legal for states to require out of state sellers to collect. In 1992, the Supreme Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to do so, unless Congress specifically authorized them to do so. Congress never did so. But this year, the Supreme Court revisited that issue and decided that it is OK, after all.
[2] Realistically, the state probably won't come after you for the difference or penalties, but it is a risk you need to evaluate.
I have a feeling the reason why most companies just went with the clickwrap consent is because there isn't really an alternative right now. And it was the path of least resistance ('just add this popup and you're good') to 'conform' with GDPR.
I'm about to have skin in the game as I'm working on an alternative (https://www.adsfromsource.com). Goal is to make advertising more respectful, both in regards to data privacy and in disallowing abusive/misdirecting/etc. ads.
Yes it may cause some business models to disappear
You’re talking about ~95% of Internet publishers and platform providers. Fortunately GDPR doesn’t apply to US sites that don’t “envisage” serving EU customers (see Recital 23). So those of us in the US will have the resources to keep publishing and innovating. But most companies/entrepreneurs that have to actually comply and aren’t big enough to essentially force users to do our bidding (Google, Facebook, etc) are going to have to close up shop.
> I always saw the intention of the GDPR as legislation [...] Instead [...] The more rulings we have like this, the better.
How many examples do we need to recognize that legislation like this on the internet, well intended it may be, doesn't solve the problem? Why do we watch an approach continually fail and tell ourselves that we must continue that approach? Insanity and foolishness. One day I hope people can separate what they want and what they can get, but in the meantime, I guess smaller businesses will just continually fret over regional compliance with unnecessary and unbeneficial societal costs. This ruling isn't going to change much except increase internet balkanization against EU. You shouldn't decry the workarounds, you should accept responsibility for them.
(I've talked about it on this board ad nauseam so I won't make a long rant here, but in general there are other approaches or even more practical ones with legislation you can take if government interference in this medium is absolutely required which is debatable. You can't just look at other regulated sectors and magically apply that logic everywhere.)
Well, GDPR is a massive win and has helped tremendously.
That many sites isn't yet compliant is expected but I actually notice that sites do improve the UX (as in, won't try to force you to consent as strongly).
Though I didn't opt to read this article because it is behind oath.
> Well, GDPR is a massive win and has helped tremendously.
Disagree, has done little and costed lots. It is a massive loss and has hurt tremendously, especially with the mandate/precedent it gives for passing other ridiculously large scoped internet regulation henceforth.
It has forced countless companies to review what they collect and how the process user data. The effects are seen everywhere even in the offline world.
The changes are absolutely monumental and it has successfully planted the notion that handling user data comes with a risk. The benefits can not possibly be overstated. We still have long ways to go but with GDPR there is hope.
GDPR has definitely caused companies to reconsider privacy and how they handle user data - which is a very good thing. The problems will arise when a giant bureaucratic organization begins passing very explicit laws and legal judgements on something as fast moving and dynamic as the internet. The unintended consequences will be massive and will almost certainly harm the entities GDPR is trying to protect in the first place.
We're going to have to disagree that forcing countless companies to review things, many of which were unnecessary, and planting notions is really doing much. It actually seems very easy to overstate those benefits. It also seems equally easy to ignore the costs.
> Considering the blatant abuse it was very much necessary.
Disagree
> Planting notions is[n't] really doing much?!
No, especially considering the scope, cost of compliance, and downsides of government interference.
> The idea that more tracking and more data collection has no downsides is how we got here in the first place.
This is why I originally wrote "One day I hope people can separate what they want and what they can get". We have to separate intent/reason from reality, and we have to stop assuming all attempts to curb a problem are righteous and justified. There are downsides to collection as FB and others are seeing in countries without these laws. The downsides grow with education. How is that even possible if there are no downsides? And, pretending that false statement was true, I'll take the company tracking and data collection over government interference any day. The former has very minimal, often only theoretical harms, whereas the latter has very known and already realized consequences to business compliance costs, freedom of information costs, and difficulty to roll back when misused.
The more rulings we have like this, the better. Yes it may cause some business models to disappear, but I feel it's worth it to take back control of our privacy.