←back to thread

249 points sebastian_z | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.229s | source
Show context
nottorp ◴[] No.43537683[source]
Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice.

So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff.

They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...

replies(5): >>43537947 #>>43538151 #>>43538242 #>>43538615 #>>43538944 #
tedunangst ◴[] No.43538944[source]
I'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?
replies(12): >>43539083 #>>43539089 #>>43539214 #>>43539342 #>>43539689 #>>43539799 #>>43540084 #>>43540518 #>>43540657 #>>43541588 #>>43541784 #>>43562780 #
surgical_fire ◴[] No.43539214[source]
It doesn't really matter if you are "fine" with their anti-conpetitive behavior. They should comply to regulations properly.
replies(2): >>43539299 #>>43539453 #
tedunangst ◴[] No.43539299[source]
Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit?
replies(4): >>43539366 #>>43539703 #>>43539729 #>>43541559 #
simion314 ◴[] No.43539703[source]
>Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit?

Weird you still have no idea why.

So let me tell you, there was a tribe in a village and they had many rules, some young boys hated the rules so they left and made their own village with no rules. One day one of them made a fire and let it unsupervised and many of their shacks burned so the boys decided that there should be one rule about not letting fires unsupervised.... the story continues with similar issues happening and they reluctantly adding one more tule, then one more rule until they get tot he same original rules from the original village.

replies(4): >>43539824 #>>43540520 #>>43540988 #>>43541841 #
1. kypro ◴[] No.43540988[source]
This isn't a good analogy though?

A good faith interpretation of the parent's comment might assume the tribe's leaders started making arbitrary rules about fires which were of questionable benefit to the tribe and when the tribe did things there own way the leaders took bananas from them as a punishment.

If the rules being made are not of clear benefit to the tribe then surely it is right to question them? Your point that rules can be good should be self-evident, as is the inverse - that rules can be bad. What's important here who is the beneficiary of those rules.