Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

251–260 of 506 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get shown ads that might be more relevant to them than just an ad picked at random, which might make them more likely to buy the product displayed in the ad. I guess that could lead to some extra harm to their wallets, but otherwise I am with you on this one.

Why do people think ads only have to deal with buying stuff like your next take out meal or a book on Amazon? We have ads for politics, charities, public service, pubic image of famous people, etc. We have ads for basically everything. We've been doing this for over 100 years too! I'm pretty sure if ads only helped sell more hamburgers then politicians would spend their campaign money elsewhere. Surely someone in the…

The previous poster made a typical response. The argument goes: "Ads are just how people learn about new products! If you have a local business, you can make a nice sign above your office/store, or the modern equivalent which is advertising on Facebook! Everyone benefits, we learn about new products, the market can function, people learn about alternatives and new competitors can efficiently enter the market and be noticed by consumers!"

Then in practice there are way more ads that sell you a worldview, adjust your desires in some small way that's small in one iteration but can transform your values over the years.

Also the problem isn't just the ads, but also the tools they use to keep you engaged with the ads and spend longer time on the platform. Their tactics follow the sparse rewards patterns that gambling also follows. They use lots of counter-intuitive patterns like intentionally throwing in irrelevant stuff, because it's how our brains are wired: we get hooked more if the interesting stuff only comes every once in a while, and otherwise it's boring. This gives the activity an overall unpredictable nature that makes our brains want to explore and understand and build a better model of this environment, to reduce this unpredictability. But if it's carefully designed and always in motion, shapeshifting in response to how the masses interact with it, it stays mysterious for our brain and we get hooked.

It's worrying how many otherwise smart people dismiss this saying "whatever, I don't buy luxury cars anyway, who cares if I saw some ads for them?" (and we could go into how the car companies can benefit from you seeing the ad even if you never buy the car yourself)

Marketing psychology and addiction psychology have developed a lot over the years and there is basically zero amount of this taught in normal schools. People just don't think in terms of these tactics. We are like some naive old trusting grandma in the eyes of the manipulators (who, by the way, aren't evil, they just want accomplishments, want to achieve metric targets, get good evaluations, get promoted, build their CV etc.).

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was actually talking about this one person's situation. They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die. It's like asking why can't I get my garbage back because I threw it in the re…

Sure, maybe people more familiar with the ins and outs and news cycles of Big Tech can prepare themselves (the only way I see is to just delete Facebook of course). But the average user who just wants to connect socially with others or follow pages shouldn’t have to read FCC filings to sleep at night.

I think a better analogy with the recycling bin is if the company who owned the bin (say, WM) suddenly started selling your junk mail to amass a psychological profile of you for advertising purposes. Sure, you can say maybe you shouldn’t have trusted the company (after all, companies suck) but at some point we have to stop blaming the users and go at the root.

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

#253

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

Obviously the EU is a force against that, standardizing regulations across the whole EU. Facebook is changing how it relates to UK users because they have left the EU, of course. At the moment there aren't really any significant contradictory laws/regulations I am aware of. Facebook could just choose to treat everyone as if they were protected by EU laws, but they choose not to. They didn't have to change how they re…

The EU has been one of the strongest pressure points towards forcing the rest of the world to acquiesce to EU specific requirements or leave. As such, the EU is at the forefront of balkanization of the internet.

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

#254
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are people foremost, not consumers, especially in the context of privacy. Please do not use their terminology, it empowers them by framing everything in the eyes of corporate interests.

When you enter a shop you become a customer, not a human being with feelings. Same goes for those platforms. You enter it and you become a consumer. If you're like it or not.

Facebook isn't selling me anything though.

Neither is google

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually talking about this one person's situation. They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die. It's like asking why can't I get my garbage back because I threw it in the re…

Yeah the whole point of GDPR is that it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from crap like this > They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die. EU society has decid…

> Venturing into the internet should [not?] require me to do hours worth of research on how to prevent tracking and fingerprinting. Companies should respect my right to privacy, and my government should annihilate companies that refuse to follow the rules.

Very true. We don’t expect consumers to read medical and pharmaceutical journals to know that their medications are safe. We have agencies for that. The same for cars, building codes, etc. and I believe the same for the Internet.

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

#256

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

ok, but this is about moving users' data not employees or servers? I'm not following the leap in logic that seems to be happening to connect these things here.

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

#257
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you were in Texas when that data was collected from you, and you returned to the EU, I doubt that GDPR would apply to that data. Afaik GDPR covers EU citizens traveling abroad, as well as non-EU citizens in the EU. Edit: It does not cover EU citizens traveling abroad, see thread below.

Afaik GDPR does not cover EU citizens (or residents) travelling outside the EU, but of course there is no harm for companies acting like it does.

I have looked around a bit, and apparently GDPR applies to:

- People in the EU

- Any data being processed in the EU, regardless of where the person is located

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more like de-globalization, which could very well be a good thing given the multitudes of problems that have arisen out of globalization.

Living in a country where a global total war and several occupations of the most evil totalitarian regimes in history is still within living memory, and having been under an isolationist totalitarian power, comments like these make me shudder. Globalization has some problems. The benefits so far have massively outweighed them, especially if you take the long view. How about we try to fix those faults, instead of retr…

Centralization of supply chains, economic monoculture, increased spread of disease, increased carbon emissions, massively increased pollution. That’s a lot of risks which are mostly unquantifiable; it’s dubious to claim we know which is worse, especially in the long run. We lived without globalism for many thousands of years, it’s incredibly new and unproven.

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

#259
post #113
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very skeptical that Facebook has ever acted in their users best interest. The EU privacy laws and the GDPR are a clearly beneficial law to citizens, protecting them against hostile companies.

Its fine that you are skeptic of FB. It is just that you seen unable to get that others can be very skeptical of EU regulations also.

EU members have some ability to hold EU regulations accountable though. The only way to hold Facebook accountable is with EU regulations

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

#260
post #60

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

We seem to be nearing peak big tech which does conflict a bit with the nation state system but looking at technology today it does seem to be a temporary phenomenon with light at the end of the tunnel. Decentralized protocols that operate at the internet layer above the interference of nation states are being built and deployed today and while they are still in their infancy they have a clear path to providing a neut…

This is pretty incoherent frankly. I don't agree with the categorization of the present as "peak big tech". Most tech firms have long roadmaps and global expansion plans, we are hardly at the peak.

Every social network that has gained any significant popularity (>100M users) is built on a closed system. Email is the only open protocol system that is relevant to bring up, and its flaws and shortcomings are well documented. Most enterprises use a closed system on top of email (Office 365 or G suite primarily) and communication is migrating to entirely closed systems (Slack or Teams).

Closed systems offer huge advantages for innovation, providing excellent user experience and strong privacy controls. As such, closed systems will continue to be the dominant paradigm.

Post reply on HN