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

Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#121

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #119
avgcorrection wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? Even more opaque. You don’t need to be of voting age (??) in order to be an activist or political in some sort of way. I’m pretty sure that Greta Thunberg wasn’t when she became famous.

Schrems is so much more than a teenager activist. Anyway, if this thread leaves you frustrated then maybe just don't participate in it? The EU has 100's of millions of people, not all of them are in a position to bring this kind of effort because it requires bringing suit (which children may be able to do but don't generally do) and a very large chunk of a lifetime's worth of dedication. So in an attempt to roughly i…

[deleted]

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#122

Post by denton-scratch »

vidarh wrote: post #113
denton-scratch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s fairly recent. No, it's not. In the early days, everything on the internet was free. Before 1996, commercial activity on the internet was forbidden.

I ran one of many commercial ISPs in 1995 and we founded ours out of frustration with the available commercial ISPs before us. AFAIK the first commercial ISP dates to around '89. But I don't think the fact the internet once had restrictions on commercial activity really makes much difference to the argument above other than in the details, given the argument was broader than about the net.

Oh, by "on the internet", I meant internet services. Sure, it cost money to get connected!

So I read the argument above as being about internet services; not hardware or connectivity, that would make it hard to understand.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#123

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

If one reads the complaint, really all the complainant is trying to do is to change his subscription from unpaid to paid.

First he subscribes to Facebook and Instagram for free, an unpaid subscription where he agrees to receive targeted ads.

Next he tries to change his subscription to paid, presumably with terms where Meta agrees not to send targeted ads.^1

Signing up for the unpaid subscription can be done with a single click.

Signing up for the paid subscription cannot.

"When the complainant finally reached the correct page, he was confronted with two options. The first preselected and reflecting his current situation was to continue using Facebook with trackers (Kostenfrei mit Werbung verwenden). The second entailed the purchase of a 9,99 monthly subscription, in order to have access to the service without being tracked (Aboabschlieen und ohne Werbung verwenden) see screenshot below, left side."

There should really be a third option: unsubscribe.

1. But does data collection still continue. Meta would probably argue it needs to track everything the complainant does while logged in to the Facebook and Instagram servers for "security" but without any restrictions on how they can use the data collected. We have already seen Facebook and Twitter getting caught using collected telephone numbers for commercial purposes when they were collected under the guise of being needed for "security". Even more, is Meta still allowed to track the complainant on the open web, outside of Meta's websites. The claims of "security" arguably do not apply there.

Is Meta still collecting and processing the complainant's data regardless of which subscription he chooses. If yes, then arguably he is only revoking consent to have ads placed on the Meta webpages that he accesses. The consent may not relate to data processing.

How does the GDPR define "data processing".

For example,

"Data processing is the collection and manipulation of digital data to produce meaningful information." French, Carl (1996). Data Processing and Information Technology (10th ed.). Thomson. p. 2. ISBN 1844801004.

Meta could still "collect and manipulate data [from the complainant] to produce meaningful information" but refrain from placing ads in webpages viewed by the complainant.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#124

Post by xvector »

troupo wrote: post #81
xvector wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you don't like it does not make it "social infrastructure." The world runs on WhatsApp and billions use Facebook to keep in touch with their family and friends. Instagram is also a huge part of the social component of the internet. The bigger problem here is that the EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it,…

> EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. You can still serve ads in the EU. Literally nothing is stopping you from doing that. > If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. > an…

> You can still serve ads in the EU.

Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Your company will not be able to provide services to users if it had to depend on just normal ads.

> This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law.

I don't really care about what the EU thinks is right. The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service. It's sensible to fight these absurd rulings in court.

You can consent to drugs or alcohol but can't consent to targeted ads. It's insane.

> Oh wow. "Companies should actually be profitable and not run on unlimited VC money" is such a radical concept.

That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options.

> Where "successful tech industry" is "hope there's unlimited VC money so that we can keep running our 'free' business while harvesting all available data on everyone because it's our God-given right"?

How much VC money does Google use again?

This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#125

Post by sensanaty »

I wish the EU would grow some balls and tell Ireland to fuck off with their shenanigans of letting these companies get away with everything.

Meta should be getting fined for every red cent they steal from users, 4% of global revenue doesn't even come close to the sort of fines that scumfuck of a company deserves.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#126

Post by knowriju »

screwt wrote: post #34
noirscape wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NOYB: "None of Your Business", it's the site being linked. They're a customer rights activist group led by Max Schrems whose self-declared job appears to be "drag every business in the world to the attention of the DPAs to make sure they're both compliant and don't do any funny business with the GDPR". DPA: Data Protection Authority. They're local to each EU country (including those that aren't full Member States but…

With Google->Alphabet and Facebook->Meta, we can now use MAAAM instead.

I personally would prefer MAMAA instead

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#127

Post by [deleted] »

denton-scratch wrote: post #122
vidarh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran one of many commercial ISPs in 1995 and we founded ours out of frustration with the available commercial ISPs before us. AFAIK the first commercial ISP dates to around '89. But I don't think the fact the internet once had restrictions on commercial activity really makes much difference to the argument above other than in the details, given the argument was broader than about the net.

Oh, by "on the internet", I meant internet services. Sure, it cost money to get connected! So I read the argument above as being about internet services; not hardware or connectivity, that would make it hard to understand.

[deleted]

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#128

Post by vidarh »

denton-scratch wrote: post #122
vidarh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran one of many commercial ISPs in 1995 and we founded ours out of frustration with the available commercial ISPs before us. AFAIK the first commercial ISP dates to around '89. But I don't think the fact the internet once had restrictions on commercial activity really makes much difference to the argument above other than in the details, given the argument was broader than about the net.

Oh, by "on the internet", I meant internet services. Sure, it cost money to get connected! So I read the argument above as being about internet services; not hardware or connectivity, that would make it hard to understand.

There were commercial services on the Internet before that too, but note the comment also talked about e.g. phone services, and so more broadly about paying for services, not just internet.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#129

Post by troupo »

xvector wrote: post #124
troupo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU offers no pathway to companies offering free-to-use, expensive-to-run services online. You can still serve ads in the EU. Literally nothing is stopping you from doing that. > If GDPR was interpreted as the EU would like it, everything from WhatsApp to Maps to YouTube would switch to paid-only. This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. > an…

> You can still serve ads in the EU. Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable. Your company will not be able to provide services to users if it had to depend on just normal ads. > This is a lie. And GDPR should be interpreted exactly the way EU wants it to be interpreted because it's an EU law. I don't really care about what the EU thinks is right. The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web serv…

> Irrelevant. Normal ads are barely profitable.

Proof?

> The EU does not understand what it takes to run a modern web service.

Demagoguery

> That profit can be obtained either with targeted ads or locking poor people out of the internet. Those are your options.

False dichotomy based on feelings

> How much VC money does Google use again?

These are literally your words: "A horde of startups would take up the banner, and as soon as they ran out of VC money".

Also, Google was extremely immensely profitable in the era before large-scale data harvesting.

> This is a blind law that pays no attention to the practicality of running services the world relies on.

Demagoguery. "We can't exist without large-scale invasive and pervasive tracking" is not a given. It's a narrative pushed by the industry with literally zero proof.

If your business for some reason cannot exist without that, good riddance.

Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint

#130

Post by PeterisP »

pnt12 wrote: post #88
difosfor wrote: post #3

I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.

I think the price point was meant to discourage people from paying. It's on par with streaming services, but with the content produced by the users. Do they get 200+ dollars in ads for the average user? For example, I considered paying but I have a semi-inactice Facebook account which isn't worth that to me. I'm also not convinced of Facebook's integrity to honor the deal and not process the data anyway.

The price might actually be adequate - they're not getting 200+ dollars in ads for the average user (IIRC it was something like 50+), however, these aren't average users; if someone is the type of person who's willing to pay 200+ dollars for Facebook, then showing ads to them can easily be worth 4x as much as the average user, that is the kind of disposable income for random conveniences that many advertisers want to get and are willing to pay a premium for.
Post reply on HN