https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ goes kind of in that direction. It's a rebranded Do Not Track header, but referencing specific privacy rights under GDPR/CCPA. That hopefully makes it enforceable, whereas advertisers could just ignore Do Not Track.
I like the idea, but that protocol is too simple. For example, I don't have too much of a problem with Matomo tracking cookies, but I don't want Google Analytics to follow me around the web.
This header doesn't specify any of that, and I'd still need to give some kind of consent through a cookie pop-up to websites that want me to use that stuff.
I see your point, but one of the main problems of P3P was its complexity. There's more than two decades of privacy-enhancing technology research showing that privacy controls need to be fundamentally simple.
I think DNT/GPC can be more fine-grained than you make it out to be. The spec is simple, but there's nothing in there that stops you from developing a browser extension that only sends DNT/GPC signals to a curated list of known bad trackers. That would give you as an advanced user some configurability while it's a simple checkbox for most folks.
I agree that P3P was way too complex, but so are the cookie popups that plague us today. P3P was built around legalese and privacy statements rather than simple consent, I think a modern take can do much better.
The extension you propose would be my vision of a modern P3P, but with categories you can set up with defaults. You don't want to force a NoScript/uMatrix style screen onto users, so the browser should simplify a bit, but a header that says "yes for necessary services, yes for analytics, no for tracking, no for advertising" (or something like that) would fit my requirements.
I think websites should also have a way to show _why_ and _how_ they process data, because that's part of the informed consent users give. A simple text field with a maximum size to force short descriptions, maybe with a "more details" button next to the selected purpose could be enough.
I don't think just sending a header would suffice because you'd still get consent popups if there's no other way to get consent. A boolean "sell my data" kust doesn't encompass the consent you're giving websites when you allow/deny.
It's a challenge to keep simple, for sure, but the UI and server-side API can be simpler than the underlying protocol. Consider the browser language list that nobody uses: to the user it's just an ordered list of languages, but in the user agent headers each language gets a numeric weight added to it. Or Firefoxs's "block trackers" button that substitutes Javascript when you enable it and applies all kinds of weird rules and detections to work.
Why not just limit patents to 3 years before they expire.
In today's world this should be all you need to pay for the research and go from startup to established company.
Some products take much longer to develop. A drug or medical device can easily take 10 years from concept/ip filing to hit market.
Other products have slow uptake. If you make a novel product with growing users, Google shouldn't be able to clone it at 3 years and push it to a billion of their users.
Journalism acts as a corpus labelling process for the slow AI that is society, also that most companies have an internal labelling process (we will trust these inputs from outside, and we inherently trust anything internal) - this also needs a rethink (ie that companies will need to have trust in incoming data whether internal or external and that labelling will need to become more explicit.
I have seen this opinion presented multiple times without any supporting facts.
When did deflation in history lead to collapse of society?
Japan is in deflation for a long time and the life goes on.
On the other hand, the inflation in Germany lead to WW2, inflation was also at least partly responsible for the hunderd year war in Europe and the fall of the Roman Empire.
As another poster pointed out the Great Depression is a good example of deflation, and it is generally recognized that this was only cured by the massive expenditures of WWII.
Also Inflation vs Hyper-Inflationyper is a key distinction.
Ordinary inflation is relatively harmless, and the NET returns available tend to equalize at the actual growth rate of the economy. E.g., if inflation is 5%/yr the stock market is likely growing at 7.5%/year, yielding the same returns as if it were growing at 2.5%/year in a 0-inflation environment.
Hyper-Inflation is the killer - when inflation gets out of control, people lose confidence in the currency, which leads to the vicious cycle of needing to print more, which leads to lower confidence, etc.. Obviously, this is to be avoided nearly as strongly as deflation. It's why Volker raised the Fed Funds Rate to up to 18%, to killed the '70s inflation that threatened to run away. But even in the following decade it was typically 3-4%, as low as 1.1% and as high as 6.1%. Yet we're now seeing 3-4%, likely transient, and people are squawking like it's the end of the world.
Great depression when relying on gold. E.g. when the value of your money will always be worth more the longer you wait, everyone tends to wait at the same time and everyone loses.
There are better ways to prevent downvote brigades than removing dislikes altogether. Not to mention that keeping likes around doesn't solve anything, as it can be exploited in the same way by upvote brigades!
As long as you don't start to actively detect fake accounts and don't limit the number of upvotes / downvotes per day a person can give, it will always be possible to game the upvote metric by a small group of people / bots.
