So basically Facebook is saying that if we can’t make money from you, you can’t have an account.
Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
151–160 of 385 posts
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#152GDPR 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).
I'm really curious to find out if the GDPR privacy stance (I'm American, not well traveled, and with no non american social circle) is like the 'no JavaScript' community. Vastly over represented in the tech community and not really representative of the population as a whole. In other words, are 99% of European citizens going to just click through what ever annoying prompts they have to in order to get to their faceb…
There are so many people undergoing GDPR workplace training at the moment that I think people may stop and think
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
That will result in a 4% revenue fine under GDPR rules if I read the correctly.
The 4% is a maximum fine, not a minimum. But indeed the regulators could choose to go quite high against a violator that is as persistently obstinate as Facebook despite having their level of resources and expertise.
I see no reason why each of the 28 member states can't find FB in violation and fine it independently.
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#154Hopefully it will encourage some people to ditch FB.
> Hopefully it will encourage some people to ditch FB.
I know my reasons for wanting to ditch FB personally (I'm about 50/50 on that), but I'm curious as to your reasons for wanting others to dump it.
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#155Earlier 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 phrasing is confusing. Why would the business want to deny services to a user who chooses to take personal responsibility over the data they provide?
[deleted]
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if higher paying ads are necessary for the service to work? Or do you foresee this being like drug prices, where the US subsidizes drug development for the world?
I'd be more understanding of your comment if Facebook was only just making a profit. However we both know it's raking in the cash.
Are you saying this law should decide if someone is making "enough" money, before deciding if profit is necessary to provide a service?
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just the US. Most of the western world has incredibly invasive security theatre in airports and train stations now.
Huh? When I get on a train in Germany, I open the door and step inside. The train station is usually even simpler.
Same at least in Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France.
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#158Earlier 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.
I fail to see why. Without clauses like this, you'd be at the same place you were before, "Either agree to all of our completely invasive and probably unrelated terms, or go pound sand." The GDPR is shifting the balance of power back so that users do have some bargaining, not just the take it or leave it that's been so prevalent for so long.
I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years. Things have been done against the interest of user privacy by burying the explanations in long privacy policies filled with legalese, and in the general underhandedness of data exchange between multiple parties. The inability to remove data you've provided to a website, too, I think is problematic in ways.
I'm a big proponent of user control, and a similarly big proponent of businesses taking much greater responsibility for the data they collect (my data was part of the Equifax breach, so I certainly get it). I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that.
If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever.
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#159So basically Facebook is saying that if we can’t make money from you, you can’t have an account.
Seems perfectly reasonable, doesn't it?
Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if higher paying ads are necessary for the service to work? Or do you foresee this being like drug prices, where the US subsidizes drug development for the world?
They aren't, though. There are other ways of making money. Like charging people. If people won't pay, well, worst things could befall the Union than Facebook leaving.
So what you are saying is that the EU should tell Facebook they can not make money by having ads, instead they need to make money by charging people?
Is that typical, for the EU to get that involved in business decisions?