Facebook should be forced to pay € 251.88 per year to all the user who consented to keep the symmetry. It's only fair if that's how much data violating basic privacy is worth to Facebook.
Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
101–110 of 136 posts
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#102I completely understand Meta finding profitable ways to skirt around the law - even breaking it subtly at times. But I'm very surprised the apparent offsenses are so large and so obvious. I was expecting them do do more subtle things like 'accidentally' asking users their cookie preference every time they use the site till they hit accept, and then never asking them ever again. When investigated, they can easily say…
> But I'm very surprised the apparent offsenses are so large and so obvious.
As long as it continues to be more profitable to go big when they break the law that's what facebook will do. Same as any other company. No need for facebook to even try to hide it because the fines/slaps on the wrist just don't matter. Try locking up CEOs or shareholders and watch how quickly they start following the law.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
could you please explain what those abbreviations mean? I know GDPR, but the rest are obscure to me.
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…
Interesting, how many of the 100s of newspapers in the EU that are doing exactly the same thing as Facebook has he dragged into court for doing it? They've been doing it for a lot longer. I do see some cases against Conde Nast, but that's not for this behavior.
I do think it's good though when somebody will go and try to take the most extreme position of some law so that the lawmakers will maybe realize that they got it wrong.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#104Earlier 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…
Interesting, how many of the 100s of newspapers in the EU that are doing exactly the same thing as Facebook has he dragged into court for doing it? They've been doing it for a lot longer. I do see some cases against Conde Nast, but that's not for this behavior. I do think it's good though when somebody will go and try to take the most extreme position of some law so that the lawmakers will maybe realize that they got…
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty rare to find a good pour over too, but Peet’s does a decent one. /s
OK but really if you want good coffee dont go to national corporate chains go to your local roaster is is passionate about good coffee. Always better.
Naturally. I’m in full agreement.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right up there with "weary" being used as an unintentional portmanteau of "leery" and "wary".
Oh man, that explains a lot of my confusion. I've seen people say weary and I thought they actually meant weary. Like they were tired because of the thing. But it never scanned correctly, so I was just confused. Now it makes sense - they meant wary / leery.
Until they mentioned it, I wasn’t even aware of how many abuses of the English language lay in these hills. I’m spooked lol
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay for services instead of being the product That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?) and repeating it only helps the worst infringers. You can pay and still be the product. Consider the streaming services which charge you but still serve ads, or physical appliances that you buy but send your usage habits to the manufacturer (like TVs). Paying is not a guarantee that a company will treat you or your priv…
> Consider the streaming services which charge you but still serve ads I pay for the ad-free experience on every service that offers it, and I still see ads. The 4 second hulu splash screen at the start of EVERY item I stream is still an ad. HBO, sorry MAX, showing 30s ads for other shows EVERY. TIME. I stream something, still an ad. At least those I can skip, but I shouldn't have to. There was no real purpose to my…
I don't think you should continue using them if paying for them still has ads. We take collective action now or we end up with cable TV all over again.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#108Clear violation, yet so many online "newspapers" do it.
Pay or get tracked and have ads shown.
Despite a ruling that it's unlawful.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a compliance perspective, does the difference matter?
Not at all, malicious may even be preferable as that's easier to correct than "skill issue." But I would argue it does matter from the "$TECH_CO bad amirite" perspective.
An organisation is what it does. Not really relevant whether the CO is malicious or incompetent, if the result is the same.