The concept of corporate personhood is way older than you think, it goes back to at least ancienct Rome around 800 BC. Other countries have that as well, eg. the German constitution says very explicitly “Fundamental rights shall also apply to domestic artificial persons insofar as the nature of such rights shall permit.”. That’s not really the issue, the actual issue is the extreme reliance of political campaigns on donations coupled with the exorbitant costs of political campaigning in the US.
Citizen’s United is very often misrepresented as being about corporate personhood, when in fact this concept isn’t even referenced in the ruling at all. Instead the ruling says that political speech rights aren’t contingent on the identity of the speaker at all. Even if you abolish corporate personhood (which would bring a whole host of other issues with it because for example corporate property ownership hinges on the legal person concept as well) that still wouldn’t overturn Citizen’s United.
it’ll just mean that multiple BOMs have to be designed for any given product - it may lead to fewer products being available, over time. or perhaps the reverse - I guess we’ll see in ~3.5 years
I’m honestly not sure how much of a win GDPR is. If you consider the number of seconds people have collectively spent clicking mindlessly on “accept cookies” dialogues, it’s one of the worst wastes of people’s time ever.
I feel like they make them as annoying as possible on purpose so that:
You learn to just click “accept” since that’s always available and clearly visible (Vs 3/4 clicks and finding the dark grey over light grey text at font size 6)
People develop the same opinion as the previous comment “stupid GDPR is just annoying because extra clicks” and making sure they never get the support for it in the US.
Laws should be evaluated according to their consequences, intended and unintended. If a law starts from the purest of intentions, and ends up annoying literally billions of people forever, it’s still a problem.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
GDPR
forcing usb-c
forcing removable batteries
The EU sure is handling tech laws and tech giants a fuck of a lot better than the US is. Damn.
Jealous.
Not hard when you start saying “corporations are people too” and then let them donate all the money to the people making the laws.
The concept of corporate personhood is way older than you think, it goes back to at least ancienct Rome around 800 BC. Other countries have that as well, eg. the German constitution says very explicitly “Fundamental rights shall also apply to domestic artificial persons insofar as the nature of such rights shall permit.”. That’s not really the issue, the actual issue is the extreme reliance of political campaigns on donations coupled with the exorbitant costs of political campaigning in the US.
Citizen’s United is very often misrepresented as being about corporate personhood, when in fact this concept isn’t even referenced in the ruling at all. Instead the ruling says that political speech rights aren’t contingent on the identity of the speaker at all. Even if you abolish corporate personhood (which would bring a whole host of other issues with it because for example corporate property ownership hinges on the legal person concept as well) that still wouldn’t overturn Citizen’s United.
What’s GDPR?
Data privacy to protect individuals. Quick summary here: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/General-Data-Protection-Regulation-GDPR
We should have that in America
it’ll just mean that multiple BOMs have to be designed for any given product - it may lead to fewer products being available, over time. or perhaps the reverse - I guess we’ll see in ~3.5 years
I’m honestly not sure how much of a win GDPR is. If you consider the number of seconds people have collectively spent clicking mindlessly on “accept cookies” dialogues, it’s one of the worst wastes of people’s time ever.
Don’t get anoyed at gdpr for that. Websites could perfectly operate with those banners being non-intrusive, they choose not to.
I feel like they make them as annoying as possible on purpose so that:
You learn to just click “accept” since that’s always available and clearly visible (Vs 3/4 clicks and finding the dark grey over light grey text at font size 6)
People develop the same opinion as the previous comment “stupid GDPR is just annoying because extra clicks” and making sure they never get the support for it in the US.
Laws should be evaluated according to their consequences, intended and unintended. If a law starts from the purest of intentions, and ends up annoying literally billions of people forever, it’s still a problem.