• Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Something most Americans desire, something big tech and social media detest. Any vote against more privacy protections is a vote bought and paid for by billionaires and that’s the real DC swamp doing it’s business as usual.

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      8 months ago

      Advertising is a core funding model for a lot of businesses. There is the legitimate the argument that upending it now could lead to the collapse of a lot of the tech sector. While I do believe we never should have gotten here in the first place, we should be cautious and methodical when unwinding it. We don’t want a recession, and we need US businesses to be able to compete on the global stage.

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Perhaps I just did a bad job of explaining my position; I agree. I just think it’s worth considering the unintended consequences of a rug pull. Maybe we need to wean the industry off slowly or something else entirely. etc. all I was getting at was that caution doesn’t immediately mean someone is bought and paid for by industry lobbies. There is nuance here.

          • becausechemistry@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            Imagine this exact comment, but for advertising cigarettes to children.

            If a business depends on doing harm to people to create ever-increasing shareholder value, that business deserves to burn.

          • Wörk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Thinking about any unintended consequences is always good. I also agree that a ‘rug pull’ in general terms is not a good thing, however; since we are talking about the privacy of the consumer and turning said privacy into a consumer right, I don’t think there will be a lot of negative consequences. The companies are going to complain but they do that no matter what.

            Personally I think, any company that solely relies on selling user data as revenue stream deserves to go down.

      • AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        If they need to buy/sell all our personal information so they can advertise, and they need to do that to survive, I’d say let them go bankrupt.

        Also, what is proposed is very reasonable, this won’t cause a recession.

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          If they need to buy/sell all our personal information so they can advertise, and they need to do that to survive, I’d say let them go bankrupt

          As long as it doesn’t take other industries with it, hard agree.

          Also, what is proposed is very reasonable, this won’t cause a recession.

          If you’re right, no disagreement there either.

          All I was trying to get at was that there is some nuance here; concern is not exclusive to corporate shilling.

      • pmmeyourtits
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hot take, considering how ridiculous prices have gotten for things like housing and groceries, maybe a recession would be good and help reduce those prices. I’m not an economist so very much spitballing

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is great. I’ll wait to see the actual proposed legislation before judging it, but this summary indicates to me that the bill is severely lacking in two major respects. Unless it is missing from the summary, it doesn’t appear to address data security requirements nor does it place limits on the types of data that can be collected.

    Regardless, this is a step in the right direction, I just hope it isn’t the only step and that it has some significant teeth. Most legislation like this seems to just be a tax on companies rather than a true penalty.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’ll likely be a federal version of the current state regulations that ad agencies already need to abide by. I wouldn’t get too excited.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Two influential lawmakers from opposing parties have crafted a deal on legislation designed to strengthen privacy protections for Americans’ personal data.

    The sweeping proposal announced Sunday evening would define privacy as a consumer right and create new rules for companies that collect and use personal information.

    While the proposal has not been formally introduced and remains in draft form, the bipartisan support suggests the bill could get serious consideration.

    Congress has long discussed ways to protect the personal data regularly submitted by Americans to a wide range of businesses and services.

    According to a one-page outline released Sunday, the bill worked out by McMorris Rodgers and Cantwell would strengthen rules requiring consumer consent before a company can collect or transfer certain kinds of information.

    One provision of the proposal would allow consumers to opt out of targeted ads — i.e., advertisements sent to them based on their personal data.


    The original article contains 339 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Any bill must also take into account the huge spy operations of the government internally. “Protecting privacy” sounds cool from Meta, but is useless unless it also covers the TSA, CBP, NSA, etc.

    • gibmiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, it’s not useless. And you are comparing apples to oranges.

      Progress is progress. If we wait for a solution that fixes everything then we will never make progress.

      The all or nothing mentality people hide behind is just a cynical shield against dissapointment.

      So let’s pursue both. Yes, regulate the private sector. But make a separate bill that handles how our government can use data.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        If we wait for a solution that fixes everything then we will never make progress.

        Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m excited to see something finally happening on this front. I’ll be paying close attention as this develops. Here’s hoping something positive actually happens.

  • exanime@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    From the USA? I’m skeptical…

    I really can’t remember the last time something positive to the world came from the USA … I’m definitely biased as the news have turned into a non-stop fake fire alarm, but still