What part of ‘get rid of my data’ don’t companies get?::undefined

  • @anlumo
    link
    English
    443 months ago

    The main problem is that there’s no business case. It does not provide value to the company to delete your data, so why would resources be allocated to it?

    The only solution is that the fines are higher than the costs for implementing a deletion process.

    • @AnUnusualRelic
      link
      English
      153 months ago

      Even in Europe, it’s like “oh,you didn’t comply? Well here’s a 700 euro fine. Now don’t do it again.”

      • gian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        53 months ago

        True until it is not found out that they are keeping the data for more time than allowed…

    • @SuckMyWang
      link
      English
      63 months ago

      It’s laziness too. There needs to be laws where you’re contacted after a year and then your data is deleted from their system of at the very least stored cold so it can’t be hacked

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      63 months ago

      Imma play Devil’s advocate here…

      People don’t want to share their data for companies to profit off of, that’s fair enough. They also don’t want to see ads on the web so they block them… And they don’t want to pay for web content with paid subscription… Now, I only see one other way for news websites to monetize their business at this point and it’s to have rich people financing them in exchange for delivering the content they choose and I personally don’t feel too good about that either!

      • @CosmicTurtle
        link
        English
        143 months ago

        It’s not that they don’t want to pay for a subscription.

        People don’t want to pay for 1000 subscriptions. That’s the problem. Every company wants their hands on passive income because that’s the new standard for their investors.

        The market showed via the old Netflix model that people are willing to pay so long as they have everything they want. When fragmentation or vendor locking happens, you get more piracy and more people installing AdBlock, which hurts everyone. Companies started this. Not users. If they banded together and made a platform where people could pay once and then content providers would get paid per click, this would all be over.

        But this will never happen because it’s anti-investor.

      • @eltrain123
        link
        English
        113 months ago

        The problem is that they already do that. They get the rich people to pay them to push an agenda, then they lock everything behind a paywall, then they advertise the fuck out of everything. You have to pay with your time and money to be advertised to on a biased service.

        If I could pay a subscription and not have them collect and sell my data and advertise in every 3rd square inch of the site, I would. But that isn’t happening when they know they can make more money by taking advantage of the customer.

        That’s why I’m here… but this is as much of an echo chamber as any other social media site.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          But independent medias do exist and all of them are struggling to be viable so people aren’t paying…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 months ago

        mostly people don’t use adblocks you know?, youtube was 30%, with 70% of ad revenue is totally possible

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          I wonder how their profits are split up between ads, selling people’s info and paying customers 🤔

  • @xc2215x
    link
    English
    163 months ago

    Companies want to profit more.