91–100 of 443 posts
[flagged]
> Feel free to downvote if you feel, as per HN guidelines, that I am not contributing to the discussion. Another reminder from the HN guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to gdpr they must still offer the same service regardless of the user opt-in. Remains to be seen if FB can follow the GDPR there. Also not sure whether that point of GDPR is compatible with other kinds of trade agreements. Probably they will go for "Please choose between 50 horrible autoplaying spammy ads or 4 personalized"
But wouldn't different ads be a different service?
If they offer the service for free, the tracking still need to be opt in.
"Users therefore need to be provided with a yes/no ("opt-in") consent option, otherwise Meta may not use their data for personalized advertisement." I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.
Meta can still use personal data for ads. They just have to explicitly ask for consent. I do not like these sensationalized titles on HN.
And no one will ever give them permission. Why would you?
Meta can still use personal data for ads. They just have to explicitly ask for consent. I do not like these sensationalized titles on HN.
It’s a BS feature and they might as well default to not let apps track. Is anyone going to click yes?
"Users therefore need to be provided with a yes/no ("opt-in") consent option, otherwise Meta may not use their data for personalized advertisement." I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? The issue isn't what we personally like or prefer for ourselves -- it's more about when we think it's legitimate to take away the right of businesses to experiment with business models, and of consumers to be free to enter into the tradeoffs they prefer. Why shouldn't a consumer be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Personal data" as mentioned in the article includes more than just logging what posts you liked. I'm sure you knew that already.
My reading here is that an "instagram lite" that: 1. Showed you posts 2. Used what posts you liked to show you more posts you'd like 3. Also used that data to show you ads you're more likely to click on 4. Didn't give you a free choice on whether they did (3) Would still be illegal under the GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Nope, that's not correct. Edit: it is correct. Rarely I'm so happy to be wrong.
> Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Explain this sentence if my understanding is incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
> To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation Is it right that a tiny but loud minority be able to ban these ad-supported services for all of society? Going by revealed preferences, most people don't consider targeting advertising to be "spying and psychological manipulation". If they did, usage patte…