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

131–135 of 135 posts

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#131

Post by e_proxus »

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…

In this case, you could argue that the "users" is almost equivalent to the people (of EU), because of how widespread the usage of Facebook is. What we see here is that the people is starting to decide that some things that Facebook are doing are not acceptable anymore.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#132

Post by kruczek »

ckastner wrote: post #95
A_No_Name_Mouse wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is that the legal ground is not based on consent but on performance of a contract, in which case consent, freely given or not, is not required at all.

I understand the trick, I just don't believe that it can play out. A contract also needs consent. This contract is clearly entered only because Facebook is making it a condition of using the service, and this type of coupling is prohibited.

> This contract is clearly entered only because Facebook is making it a condition of using the service

The contract is entered when a user registers at Facebook. However Facebook seems disagree about what the contract involves. Any sane person (well, 96% of them, as the article claims) would say that the contract is for delivery of means to communicate with other people; Facebook seems to argue that the contract is for delivery of personalized ads.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#133

Post by satnam14 »

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

PyTorch. It's better than Tensorflow

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#134

Post by ckrailo »

cmcd wrote: post #21
xg15 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, ads should be made illegal, but that's not the point here. Facebook is perfectly free to show ads to people, they are just not free to track people. They are trying to use ads as a justification for tracking here, which is the contested point. And before you answer that ads without tracking don't pay the bills, that's honestly Facebook's problem.

The alternative to ads is subscription services, which already exist. If people prefered subscription social media to ad based they would flock to those, but they don't.

I'm surprised that FB after all these years hasn't offered something as simple as a paid upgrade for removing ads and maybe better photo storage or something.

Maybe that lack of long-term feature is endemic to the capitalist system/environment, because decade-long growth usually isn't allowed to sacrifice short-term growth. I couldn't imagine a private company like Valve Software making the same decisions.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#135

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

buboard wrote: post #94
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and a comrade major from the FSB has easy and unlimited access to all your conversations and data A vast majority of political prosecutions for online extremism in Russia were carried out using info that VK subserviently provided to police and special services.

yeah i was being ironic. As for access, i assume there are server farms on quite a few countries looking for all kinds of patterns in chats. Until E2E encryption becomes extensively spread, it 's a joke to pretend there 's some kind of user privacy

If you run your own XMPP server (can be done dirt cheap now), you don't really need e2ee and all the problems that come bundled with it.
Post reply on HN