111–120 of 385 posts
Interesting. It seems like after the senate hearings, Facebook is trying to communicate to its users that sending them your data is a necessary part of using their services.
Button 1: Agree and proceed. Button 2: Set up credit card billing. Button 3: Close account.
GDPR doesn't cover enough of the population using Facebook to warrant such a change to their business model where you can use the service without them using your data. They believe they are entrenched enough to just require this (and likely are for many EU residents).
Are you talking with real knowledge of the facts, or is this a guess? Because my guess would be that it would be cheaper to adhere to the rules rather than let a competitor grow big in Europe and eat their market elsewhere.
Unless, of course, their central business model is incompatible with GDPR-compliance in the first place...
Is it possible to delete my facebook account without consenting to usage of my data? So can I access the delete page without consent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem to comply with the letter of the law though, based on the requirement of "freely given, non-conditional consent".
What does it even mean to be conditional? Is the EU saying that FB has to provide their service to Europeans? Does the EU also require that businesses sell their services and products at a loss? Doesn't FB have some right to deny usage of their service to those who choose not to abide by FB's policies? Whether it's disapproval of tracking or behavior violations, it seems like FB should be able to say they don't want…
Nobody is forcing them to serve the EU market.
GDPR doesn't cover enough of the population using Facebook to warrant such a change to their business model where you can use the service without them using your data. They believe they are entrenched enough to just require this (and likely are for many EU residents).
I'm really curious to find out if the GDPR privacy stance (I'm American, not well traveled, and with no non american social circle) is like the 'no JavaScript' community. Vastly over represented in the tech community and not really representative of the population as a whole. In other words, are 99% of European citizens going to just click through what ever annoying prompts they have to in order to get to their faceb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's disconcerting to me that under the GDPR, online businesses appear to be losing the ability to deny services to a user who knowingly, and with clear consent, chooses to take personal responsibility over the data they provide to said businesses. Regardless of whether this is for the "greater good", this is deeply unsettling territory.
How did you determine "knowingly, and with clear consent"? I guess I'd agree that if someone wrote a 5 page paper describing all the ways that Facebook harvests their data and what might be done with it afterwards then they should be allowed to do what they want? But I suspect most people would be like "uhhh, I think they, um, know what pages I liked? And maybe they use that for ads?"
"Clear consent", in my mind, would be something along the lines of "we use tracking cookies and tracking on widgets third-party websites embed, as well as the data you provide to us in terms of posts, comments, photos and other content to personalize the ads you see". If you accept those terms, well, then you certainly can't be surprised when Facebook — or whoever — does precisely that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no legal right to Facebook, but if Facebook wants to do business here, it has to abide by our rules. And our rules are very simple, you cannot deny service because the user doesn't allow tracking if tracking is not necessary for your service to work. And it isn't in this case, it's only necessary to deliver higher paying ads. Since they are being selective on the users they accept based on being tracked, the…
And if higher paying ads are necessary for the service to work? Or do you foresee this being like drug prices, where the US subsidizes drug development for the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is extremely possible to sign away one's free speech; this is the heart of a non-disclosure agreement.
No, that says: If you choose to exercise your free speech on this one particular area, then the consequence will be severe. The result will be that most people would opt to follow the NDA, but you're still allow to say whatever you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see that argument going well: Since they let users opt-out of targeted advertising, which is probably the only thing "tracking" is useful for, they tacitly admit that "tracking" is not necessary for them to providing their service.
"We require tracking to pay for the costs of providing this free service". No such thing as a free lunch.
> No such thing as a free lunch.
Please square that with the fact (which I already pointed out) that they already provide their free service without targeting, based on user settings.
They can't using tracking to "pay the costs of providing this free service" without ad targeting (unless they're selling the tracking data, which they publicly deny).
I'm making an educated guess that mere declarations of necessity tracking are not sufficient legal justification for it in the EU.