11–20 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.
Just replace "ads" with "personalized ads" in the parent FB is free because they can pay for it with personalized ads. I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.
Honestly, if this "loophole" is allowed to exist then the GDPR is not worth the paper it is written on. The idea that consent should be freely given is ludicrous if it can be overridden by simply including it in a term in the terms and conditions. Facebook could probably write that they can kill or castrate the user at any time and most of their users wouldn't notice it (until the media picked it up).
I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…
The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads. GDPR should be used for exactly this purpose - it is a protection against companies collecting and using personal data in this way. Facebook has the choice to show ads, just not personalised ones. What is specifically being argued about is that Facebook tried to claim ads were a contractua…
I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.
Just replace "ads" with "personalized ads" in the parent FB is free because they can pay for it with personalized ads. I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.
Maybe that’s ok.
Honestly, if this "loophole" is allowed to exist then the GDPR is not worth the paper it is written on. The idea that consent should be freely given is ludicrous if it can be overridden by simply including it in a term in the terms and conditions. Facebook could probably write that they can kill or castrate the user at any time and most of their users wouldn't notice it (until the media picked it up).
It's great that this is happening in front of an Austrian court, because the Austrian Data Protection Agency already has ruled on consent issues, and in those rulings was (IMO) extremely strict on when consent was given freely. In one ToS challenge, the mere potential for confusion was enough to render it invalid.
Edit: Here's one such ruling [2]. Co-mingling checkboxes for processing of data for marketing purposes with actual contractual clauses was ruled as a violation of the GDPR, even though by default, the checkboxes were unchecked. The Agency ruled that the confusing nature of the form could lead subjects to believe that they had to check a checkbox to receive the service.
Also, another relevant local case would be with a popular national newspaper, DerStandard.at. That newspaper offers access in two ways: either (a) you pay for a subscription and receive the service ad-free, or (b) you access the service for free, but consent to receiving ads. This was deemed in compliance with the GDPR, but it was stated that only offering (b) -- ie, exactly what Facebook does -- would not hold up.
[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/
[2] https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_20180731_DSB_D2...
I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…
If ads that work without spying on users don’t pay enough to pay their data center bills then they should shut them down. I’m more than happy to vote for politicians that ensure this. I’m not comfortable saying “I’ll just not use services from companies X and Y because they use shady ads”.
Hasn’t there already been rulings against those kind of clauses being shoehorned in terms and conditions? I can’t make you sell your soul for subscribing to a service.