A more careful reading would reveal that I’m NOT in favor of enabling the privacy invasion. I’m against blocking regions rather than comply with a common sense law. I really thought using the words “secret malware” about their deceptive practices would have made that obvious…
I never said you were in favour of it, another assumption you’re making. You asked why the downvotes and the answer is your strawman argument(s), and being against geoblocking and pro privacy isn’t mutually exclusive.
I’m not the one making assumptions here. You’re the one implying that you downvoted my original comment because you thought it was anti-privacy, which it wasn’t.
I know that being against geoblocking and pro privacy at the same time is possible since that’s MY OWN position. I guess that wasn’t clear enough im the original comment, but it should be ABUNDANTLY clear to anyone by now since this is the second or third time I state it explicitly.
cutting people off from important information just because they live in a geographical region that doesn’t allow secret malware.
I think most disagree with your argument, that you need to tolerate ‘secret malware’ to access important information. That information can’t be THAT important or else it could be found elsewhere, completely without malware.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing for the sites to comply with the EU law by making the content available WITHOUT the malware rather than by blocking access.
Yeah, because wanting important information to be freely accessible to the world is SUCH an entitled perspective, unlike pretending that secretly spying on your users and feeding them unwanted ads is justified 🙄
I want free food and housing too, but unless I’m going out and creating it myself, I have to pay the companies that provide them to me.
Im not completely arguing with you, I get annoyed by not being able to read stories from my local paper, but they are paying people to go get that information and turn it into a article. If that was all free, they’d go out of business pretty fast and then there would be no news, just Internet rumors.
That’s a good point for most of the sites pulling shenanigans like this, but in the case of the news sites I was referring to, none of the negative stuff they do would be allowed under the EU rule
See, while I don’t like the invasiveness of it, that’s also their business model. If they put it behind a subscription instead, it wouldn’t be right to say “this information is important and needs to be available, stop charging for it,” when charging for it is part of why they provide it. Private companies have a right to not do business with those that won’t pay for their services, even if that payment is your data.
Europeans (and everyone, morally) have a right to privacy that conflicts with the method of payment. This website resolved that, if it can’t get paid in it’s chosen form, it won’t provide its service. That’s fine. I don’t support this decision, but it’s not
If this information is vital to the public, that’s a separate issue entirely, and it needs to be available in some form that isn’t sold. We can’t rely on a private entity not employed by a government to do this of its own free will.
deleted by creator
Poor strawman mate. You don’t have to be “a geoblocking fan,” you can despise it, while also not enabling privacy invasive firms.
A more careful reading would reveal that I’m NOT in favor of enabling the privacy invasion. I’m against blocking regions rather than comply with a common sense law. I really thought using the words “secret malware” about their deceptive practices would have made that obvious…
I never said you were in favour of it, another assumption you’re making. You asked why the downvotes and the answer is your strawman argument(s), and being against geoblocking and pro privacy isn’t mutually exclusive.
I’m not the one making assumptions here. You’re the one implying that you downvoted my original comment because you thought it was anti-privacy, which it wasn’t.
I know that being against geoblocking and pro privacy at the same time is possible since that’s MY OWN position. I guess that wasn’t clear enough im the original comment, but it should be ABUNDANTLY clear to anyone by now since this is the second or third time I state it explicitly.
deleted by creator
I think most disagree with your argument, that you need to tolerate ‘secret malware’ to access important information. That information can’t be THAT important or else it could be found elsewhere, completely without malware.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing for the sites to comply with the EU law by making the content available WITHOUT the malware rather than by blocking access.
Unfortunately you aren’t automatically entitled to this information that I imagine mostly comes from private for-profit companies.
Yeah, because wanting important information to be freely accessible to the world is SUCH an entitled perspective, unlike pretending that secretly spying on your users and feeding them unwanted ads is justified 🙄
I want free food and housing too, but unless I’m going out and creating it myself, I have to pay the companies that provide them to me.
Im not completely arguing with you, I get annoyed by not being able to read stories from my local paper, but they are paying people to go get that information and turn it into a article. If that was all free, they’d go out of business pretty fast and then there would be no news, just Internet rumors.
You always have the option of a VPN. That and private mode is probably a good best practice for a site like this anyway.
That’s a good point for most of the sites pulling shenanigans like this, but in the case of the news sites I was referring to, none of the negative stuff they do would be allowed under the EU rule
deleted by creator
See, while I don’t like the invasiveness of it, that’s also their business model. If they put it behind a subscription instead, it wouldn’t be right to say “this information is important and needs to be available, stop charging for it,” when charging for it is part of why they provide it. Private companies have a right to not do business with those that won’t pay for their services, even if that payment is your data.
Europeans (and everyone, morally) have a right to privacy that conflicts with the method of payment. This website resolved that, if it can’t get paid in it’s chosen form, it won’t provide its service. That’s fine. I don’t support this decision, but it’s not
If this information is vital to the public, that’s a separate issue entirely, and it needs to be available in some form that isn’t sold. We can’t rely on a private entity not employed by a government to do this of its own free will.