Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 506 posts

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#211

Post by tomtheelder »

trident5000 wrote: post #110
lmilcin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It even is sometimes weaponized to help fight competition. For example, by making it expensive to conduct a certain type of business and requiring even higher entry costs (things like certification, licences, etc.) it actually favors large, established businesses. Case in point: Uber suggesting minimum wage for their workers, some time ago. Think about this, the company refuses to recognize them as their work force b…

My favorite is the NY LLC publishing requirement. To start a business you must publish that you started a business for 6 consecutive weeks which costs thousands. Wonder what back door corrupt deal was made on that one.

That one is just an archaic rule, but I registered an LLC in NY for like $200 all in. Services will publish for you in random publications for that cost. Still annoying, but not a huge deal realistically.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#212

Post by 0x426577617265 »

ricardo81 wrote: post #185
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #23

Free exchange among peoples is alive and well. It is easier today to make a website and share anything than it has ever been in the history of civilization. All this is is the reining in of a few greedy corporations that offer information-sharing platforms in exchange for exploitation. New communities will pop up, and old ones resurface.

It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords. Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other…

> ... vs preferred method of displaying things due to the technical limitations of how they store information.

I don’t believe that is what the platform is doing. It is displaying content the user will most likely interact with, resulting in the user staying on the platform longer. It seems quite dangerous to me, as it could cause users to assign some sort of weight to the content, particularly if the content is well liked by others it could lead to the belief that ‘this is the correct information’.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#213

Post by uncomputation »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #167
avianlyric wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this specific case, my data is being moved to California. Placing it in direct reach of the US government, which has not been historically shy about abusing that kind of reach. I would quite like my data to stay in the UK, where national governments I don't elect or pay taxes to, can't touch it.

To be honest, your data was first moved into the hands of an American company by you . You still have 15 days to force them to delete everything under threat of GDPR.

Sorry to be anti-capitalist real quick but what is it with HN and dying for Big Tech/1%? Do you think FB would show you the same loyalty?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#214

Post by alisonkisk »

Sargos wrote: post #41
est31 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't really call it balkanization. Most services still operate across borders. Thanks to the internet I have contact to peers from all over the world. Some aspects of the internet will become more localized in the future, but generally inter border communication is still growing I think. And in fact on an EU level, rules are unified instead of balkanized. The digital single market project brought things like th…

EU is still pretty balkanized when it comes to rules and is a headache for businesses especially when compared to the US.

Everyone remembers that "balkanization" refers to chopping up a nation into pieces (Balkans), right? So it's funny to see nations and multi-nations groups, who often sign treaties to "rationalize" rules, referred to as Balkanizing.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#215

Post by Hokusai »

ricardo81 wrote: post #185
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #23

Free exchange among peoples is alive and well. It is easier today to make a website and share anything than it has ever been in the history of civilization. All this is is the reining in of a few greedy corporations that offer information-sharing platforms in exchange for exploitation. New communities will pop up, and old ones resurface.

It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords. Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other…

> due to the technical limitations of how they store information.

Has nothing to do with technical limitations and everything with engagement metrics. Facebook does not want to show you what you want to see, they want to show you what will hook you and keep you in the platform. If anything, it takes more resources to show their view than just a time posted order.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#216

Post by 8note »

treeman79 wrote: post #145
Retric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful of abstract calls to action without specifics. Many calls to “reduce taxes” actually mean a subsidy for some industry in the form of targeted tax breaks. Reducing regulation just as often targets insiders as it does actually improve things. Often after a dictator takes power they do a crackdown on ‘corruption’ which has popular support. What their actually doing is consolidating power, but if you call it a…

Fewer regulations should be the goal. Simplified tax goals. Fairtax was a great attempt at this. One tax rate. Everyone got a check so that poor people didn’t suffer. Millions of tax attorneys and government would need to find something else to do.

Better regulations should be the goal.

Fewer can mean keeping the bad ones while getting rid of the good ones.

One tax rate sounds like junk to me. A progressive tax rate that applies to all things that get you money: income, gains, loans, etc makes more sense. Along with some way of getting taxes when money leaves local borders.

... And you need subsidies for the things you want to promote. Always doing that as explicit subsidies makes sense though. If you want people to take out loans, you can grant subsidies for their loan repayments

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#217

Post by kridsdale1 »

oblio wrote: post #59
ldargin wrote: post #35

Welcome to the United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Why not just "United States"? England would be the most populous state and Northern Ireland and Wales could duke it out with Mississippi and Alabama :-p I'm assuming that Scotland would not want any part of this, that's why I'm not including it.

We could just circle round to New England

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#218

Post by s1artibartfast »

avianlyric wrote: post #176
pilsetnieks wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, your data was first moved into the hands of an American company by you . You still have 15 days to force them to delete everything under threat of GDPR.

I don't have an issue giving my data to an American company. I just don't want them to store it in the US without my explicit consent. Equally if you buy a product from a Chinese company in the US, you would expect that product to meet US standards, not Chinese standards.

>Equally if you buy a product from a Chinese company in the US, you would expect that product to meet US standards, not Chinese standards.

Conversely, if China had higher standards, I wouldn't be surprised if the product met the chinese standards.

In this case, California standards will meet or exceed those of the UK.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#219

Post by pilsetnieks »

8note wrote: post #179
pilsetnieks wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, your data was first moved into the hands of an American company by you . You still have 15 days to force them to delete everything under threat of GDPR.

Theres no guarantee that it was done by you. It could be done by a company you did business with, or through some tracking pixel

This is the HN crowd and they were talking about themselves. I assume they're aware means of protection against it.

The rest I do feel sorry for.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#220

Post by jacquesm »

This won't fly, for the simple reason that the ICO will have the same set of rules regarding data privacy that the EU has right now. They may change it, but that's the starting position. Facebook is not going to like the kind of fines that the ICO can throw at them.
Post reply on HN