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

Facebook: We don’t need your consent

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#121

Post by pwinnski »

bduerst wrote: post #99
pwinnski wrote: post #46

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…

Regardless of user demand, many businesses and business models are still illegal by popular acclaim.

User demand is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a business to exist.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#122

Post by bduerst »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #113
bduerst wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> as no one is arguing that any corporate entity simply has the right to exist 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…

The problem here isn't Facebook (even though it certainly has problems), it's that your preferences do not align with the majority of FB's existing users' preferences for social networks. That's my point - the users dictate what exists on the market, and entrants like Snapchat and TikTok show that it is possible for new social networks to attract users off of Facebook.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#123

Post by bduerst »

pwinnski wrote: post #121
bduerst wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regardless of user demand, many businesses and business models are still illegal by popular acclaim. User demand is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a business to exist.

Such as?

Existing legality is not necessarily a good cause to dictate if a business should exist or not, as for some markets the law tends to lag society (i.e. federal law and weed dispensaries). This discussion isn't really about legality anyways, it's about market demand.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#124

Post by r00fus »

Havoc wrote: post #27

Congrats on finding a way to circumvent the letter of the law. Think they're about to have an harsh encounter with spirit of the law & European thinking about privacy & consent though.

At the very least, from a "I expect the worst from my government" skeptic POV, one could see this as a good shakedown opportunity from Facebook for massive fines.

The only reason that doesn't happen is either fear of FB or corruption.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#125

Post by usr1106 »

hgjbhujxgjbv wrote: post #117

But this is really strange, news like this with 186 pts atm is on 3rd page. Before it are news with 2pts. This doesnt make any sense. Is it a coverup by HN administration?

I would not shout coverup.

But that's the problem of closed source rating algorithms https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21544537

(not suggesting that HN would use contractors and blacklists, but generally the discussion about the black magic happening)

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#126

Post by hiccuphippo »

buboard wrote: post #52
bad_user wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also important to mention... serving ads without consent is not ilegal under GDPR, what is illegal is user profiling with the purpose of serving ads. In practice for Facebook the attraction for their ads platform is precisely that you can target fine grained demographics. So I'm not sure if Facebook can do anything here without a drop in revenue.

if the court gives them another fine (probably yes), FB will probably become a paid service in europe, but then will pay you back with its "ad viewing" program so it can be free again. This would also be compatible with california's new regulations i think

Won't the regulators eventually patch the law so they can't use that exploit?

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#127

Post by mmanfrin »

option wrote: post #111
JohnFen wrote: post #29

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

React, yarn, cassandra.

Looking at the first page of your comment history, it seems a good third of your comments get downvoted. It may be wise to reread the HN guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#129

Post by mpweiher »

tcd wrote: post #25

The GDPR is a failure anyway. US tech giants are still globbling up masses of data even if the individual hasn't consented. For example, the "contacts" permission should be disabled on OS's in the EU as it's impossible to prove the user has constend to sharing that information, yet Google launches an API in chrome to access the users contacts which totally won't be abused. Alternatively you can gobble up data and "ac…

GDPR enforcement is just beginning. The cases again the big guys have started to be made, but haven't actually made it yet. When they do, things will get interesting...right now we're in limbo...or more precisely in a Wile E. Coyote moment.

I am keeping my popcorn ready.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#130

Post by e_proxus »

cmcd wrote: post #83
riversflow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The alternative to indentured servitude is free labor, which already exists. If people preferred free labor to indentured service, no one would sign a service contract, but they do.” -paraphrasing someone 300 years ago, probably. Sometimes people pick things that are bad; that people choose something doesn’t make it somehow good.

Pretty extreme to compare FaceBook to indentured servitude, everyone is free to leave FaceBook at any time and we know up front what their model is.

An analogy is not a comparison. I think an analogy here was made to reinforce the point made, not to in any way claim that Facebook somehow deals with indentured servitude.
Post reply on HN