111–120 of 135 posts
Time and time we are proven again and again that Facebook has become the emblem of how far technology can go to support pure malicious intention with widespread support.
Indeed. Facebook is one of the scummiest tech companies in existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's on page 2 but in grey font. What does that mean? 164 points after 2 hours. Many downvotes by GDPR haters??? Edit: s/at the moment/after 2 hours/
I think the grey text is something else -- like if it was already visited before or you upvoted it or something. I checked on two different browsers and it was gray on one but not on the other, so who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If generic ads can't fund FB, that's FB's problem. FB does not have some sort of right-to-exist. Beyond that, if FB goes out of business completely, the world is arguably improved.
No, that is the users problem. The users determine if FB has the right to exist, as no one is arguing that any corporate entity simply has the right to exist. I haven't used FB in years, but even I know that if FB didn't exist that another service would fill the gap in the market. The problem is FB plays fast and loose with privacy and security, which should be the focus of criticism for FB, since that negatively aff…
Yes, but I do still see people give the "just don't use FaceBook then" argument on every post about this on HN, as if we should just ignore all the problems. Under this insane framework any horrible behavior by a company towards their customers is justified as long as you use their products willingly.
This also ignores the massive existing adoption FaceBook has. If I want to switch to twitter or mastodon or $otherSocialNetwork I have to convince everyone I communicate with on FaceBook to switch too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument would carry more weight if the terms of service and privacy policies were both complete and written in a way that ordinary non-lawyer people could actually understand. However, 90+% of the time, they're not.
Eh, if I sign up for a credit card for "0% APR!!!" and then don't read the fine print that it's an introductory offer, isn't that a result of my action (or lack thereof)? That they use fine print or dense legalese doesn't invalidate the fact that it was there for the end-user to read and agree or disagree with. I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actual…
I find exactly the opposite.
> They're verbose, not arcane.
They're both.
The problem is that people aren't lawyers and don't read them with a lawyer's eye. This frequently leads people to think that the terms are saying things that they aren't saying (by design). People tend to think that these policies are more favorable to the user than they actually are.
Time and time we are proven again and again that Facebook has become the emblem of how far technology can go to support pure malicious intention with widespread support.
This thread was removed from the front page of HN real fast, as in—one second it's at the top of the site, the next minute it's gone. Despite being very, very relevant news and lots of discussion going on. It's disappointing, although not surprising, to know where HN's allegiences lie in this particular fight.
while they may have a point their arguments are not well articulated > Europe’s strict privacy laws actually it's EU's privacy regulation > Facebook openly admitted that it has been collecting and processing data without users’ consent They said that they ve been collecting WITH consent, at least with their definition of consent > To prove that no one ordered advertising from Facebook, we conducted a neutral study by…
The GDPR (which is not the only EU privacy law) is fairly described as a “law”, “regulation” is just the formal EU law term for a directly-applicable primary legislative act, which is a kind of law. If you're complaining about the “EU” part, well, the GDPR applies in some non-EU countries too (e.g. in the EEA).
> They said that they ve been collecting WITH consent, at least with their definition of consent
Some data is collected with ostensible consent, some without, and there's still processing to deal with.
> And i bet only 4% want to pay taxes too. polls are not legal documents. Also, "wanted advertising" is very different from "accepted advertising as part of the terms"
Sure, but the GDPR also means you can't forcibly bundle consents together. You need to separately consent to invasive use of data for advertising versus provision of the basic service.
> I believe facebook does give all their personal data
Did this recently change? I seem to recall that Facebook are known for not providing e.g. the data they've got from you browsing other sites with FB cookies unless you went via some difficult legal route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Facebook is one of the scummiest tech companies in existence.
facebook is not a tech company. What new tech did it invent? It is exploiting human psychology for advertising purposes using previously existing tech
while they may have a point their arguments are not well articulated > Europe’s strict privacy laws actually it's EU's privacy regulation > Facebook openly admitted that it has been collecting and processing data without users’ consent They said that they ve been collecting WITH consent, at least with their definition of consent > To prove that no one ordered advertising from Facebook, we conducted a neutral study by…
> actually it's EU's privacy regulation The GDPR (which is not the only EU privacy law) is fairly described as a “law”, “regulation” is just the formal EU law term for a directly-applicable primary legislative act, which is a kind of law. If you're complaining about the “EU” part, well, the GDPR applies in some non-EU countries too (e.g. in the EEA). > They said that they ve been collecting WITH consent, at least wit…
details, but they are not claiming that data collection is without consent. they claim that they need a separate consent to use that data to show personalized ads
> you can't forcibly bundle consents together
Yeah that is true. still, making an online poll about what people want in general is a ridiculous way to nullify an agreed contract
> you browsing other sites with FB cookies
that would depend on whether these are personally identifying or personal data in general
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who won? Whichever European social network replaces them. Facebook is a freak social network considering how long it has survived. People used to migrate every one to two years.
> Whichever European social network replaces them. GDPR makes it very difficult to touch user's private data for commercial purposes. that's the whole business of a SN so this is kind of precluded