141–150 of 385 posts
Just after that Terms screen I got three real consent screens (including one about ads tracking and one about face recognition). I think this screen is only about the TOS update.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because they chose a specific business model doesn't mean it's necessary. Nobody says the lunch must be free, just that not every avenue of funding is allowed.
The GDPR talks about "executing a contract, which includes the provision of services" (not the exact wording, but something like that). So if you define "using the social network in return for having targeted ads displayed" as the contract, it is necessary. > just that not every avenue of funding is allowed Funding by targeted ads isn't illegal last time I checked.
"The processing must be necessary to deliver your side of the contract with this particular person. If the processing is only necessary to maintain your business model more generally, this lawful basis will not apply and you should consider another lawful basis, such as legitimate interests."
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
> Funding by targeted ads isn't illegal last time I checked.
It is if you don't get consent. And you can't make that consent required to provide a service, since then it won't be "freely given", as per Article 7.
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…
Since they use that data to sort your feed I think they can argue it is necessary for the service to operate.
None of the tracking they do is essential to the service they ostensibly provide to their users, namely as a microblogging/discussion/sharing platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the GDPR's "necessary to work" clause considers profit models. I believe, (again, IANAL) that "necessary to work" is really "necessary for a feature to function"; how a company derives revenue from the service doesn't come into account. It would be interesting to see revenue as a necessity be tested in court, since there are open-source social networks that don't rely on user tracking or data sales to t…
On the contrary, commercial interests, including things like direct marketing, are considered acceptable "legitimate interests" under the GDPR, assuming the practice follows industry standards, ethics, and are legal. However, they need to pass two other tests, a "necessity" test that determines that the processing of information is necessary to serve the interest, and, most crucially, a "balancing" test which balance…
Also, does Facebook's ad network really constitute "direct marketing"? I had imagined that to be more of an email blast about a new FB feature, rather than collect-your-usage-data-and-sell-marketing-slots-to-you.
Now that I type that out, I guess it does make more sense. However, I really am not a big fan of the common-law approach to the "balancing" test. Basically, whoever has the most money and faces the most lenient judge wins. Everyone else is left guessing what the hell is legal and what isn't, when a clear set of rules would be much easier to fairly apply to everyone.
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…
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.
No we will not tell you what you did. You already know what you did.
Our automated systems found your policy violation and acted appropriately. They are beyond your comprehension or refutation.
You may not talk to a person regarding your dismissal. It is against policy to discuss active or closed issues.
You have no recourse other than social media or tech websites, and beg. And we still will likely not care.
--Care of US tech companies.
....So, you want to live with rules for companies that allow this kind of egregious and arbitrary actions? I sure as hell don't. Want to see what this stuff devolves to? Look no further than Comcast and ilk.
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).
As far as I know, the GDPR stipulates that you cannot deny people access to you service if they do not opt-in to tracking, unless the service you provide is very specifically a tracking service. Tracking is not the primary service Facebook provides to their users, so the GDPR will not allow them to bar access for users who do not opt-in to being tracked.
- accept ToS and use Facebook, or
- deny ToS, download user data and delete account (under 'More options').
IIRC, the GDPR is very explicit about what constitutes valid consent, so things like pre-checked check-boxes aren't valid. Is "consent" gained by a screen with only an "I agree" button even kosher by it?
My guess is that GDPR is not yet in effect thus they can use this to get consent in advance. After GDPR is in place these will be changed to comply with it.
Believe me folks, just delete facebook. I've been so much happier since I did.
What about memes pages? that's the only reason I keep my account. Also, I don't even see adds with and Ad-blocker. What are they going to try to sell me, a meme page subscription?
They are selling you to not just advertisers but selling your profile to companies that are able to use your profiled information to make their own decisions about things.
It's not just about advertisements. Imagine if you didn't serve a single advertisement and instead bought profiling information about people. You could use that profile information to make business or political decisions regardless of whether an advertisement was sold.
You could influence politics because you "know" your target audience.
Say, for example, the US presidential election or Brexit. Those are just the most high profile places for your profile to be used without ever having presenting advertisement to you.
Net neutrality is another one.
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.
Your account has been suspended for the foreseeable future for breaking the terms of service. No we will not tell you what you did. You already know what you did. Our automated systems found your policy violation and acted appropriately. They are beyond your comprehension or refutation. You may not talk to a person regarding your dismissal. It is against policy to discuss active or closed issues. You have no recourse…
Where by "your" we mean "one's", i.e. effectively "our".