EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram

Post by hdhianao » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 12:30 PM UTC

thewaywego wrote: post #59

konschubert wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no reason to assume that FB is using message content to target ads.

its facebook....assuming anything but the worst handling of user data is beyond foolish

Post by pembrook » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 12:31 PM UTC

LightHugger wrote: post #100

pembrook wrote: post #75

Ok, my contrarian hot take (for HN at least). The real entities we need to be afraid of in regards to privacy are governments & politicians, not companies & entrepreneurs. The worst thing a company can do is try to sell you more soap. The government on the other hand can literally ruin your life (or even end it in some countries). The EU is doing a fantastic job of keeping everyone distracted by pointing the finger a…

When you realize that large enough corporations are a form of government, your way of thinking really starts falling to bits... But, the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. You can't convince a profit motivated corporation to stop doing something evil as long as it's profitable, so it's the government's job to protect people from corporate governance.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 12:33 PM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #122

mjburgess wrote: post #90

Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data. Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking. It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., go…

Why should it be illegal? I don’t understand the moral threat. Personally I feel that privacy gets too much airtime as a value — I see lots of other more direct issues (like political manipulation) that will remain an issue even with “strong privacy.”

Post by jowea » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 12:33 PM UTC

vasdae wrote: post #18

thorncorona wrote: post #4

Hot take, it’s hard to have a free internet without ads. Lots of websites have marginal utility, but can be paid for with ads. And those websites will disappear when CPM rates go down the drain.

There's a conspiracy here that people can't see. Free sites will close without targeted advertisement, obviously; they barely can afford to pay salaries now, so with untargeted ads it will be impossible. And the only media sites that will be able to afford to run are those that are subsidised by the state. This is already happening in Europe, where most of the big media are practically bankrupt and their income comes…

Post by fsflover » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 12:35 PM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #134

LightHugger wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you realize that large enough corporations are a form of government, your way of thinking really starts falling to bits... But, the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. You can't convince a profit motivated corporation to stop doing something evil as long as it's profitable, so it's the government's job to protect people from corporate governance.

> the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Especially in a "democracy," when the people have implicitly given approval for this by voting in the people who are attempting to consolidate power?