151–160 of 255 posts
I wish the US would get its act together on stuff like this but it’s too busy getting campaign funds from such schemes
Context from the Norwegian article: Meta promised to ask users whether they want to opt-in, but they never did, so now they are banning these behaviours until they have come up with a better way of handling this. Furthermore, Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal.
> Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal. I really don't get this attitude. I 100% endorse everyone's right to uninstall every Meta app and never use them, and to block their on-page trackers on third-party websites with an adblocker, all that. But the notion that there should be some sort of EU-protected "Right To Use Facebook For Free"... nah. Using the ap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I donno, I know I'm in the minority but I agree with the parent. Facebook isn't going to people's homes and rifling through drawers. They're using information people willigly share in their profiles. They're not selling personally identifiable information. They're selling generalized group info on categories people fall into for targeted ads. I don't understand how this is a privacy violation or unethical. Especially…
> Facebook isn't going to people's homes and rifling through drawers When they start correlating with external payments sources they are
[flagged]
scandinavians are no different from other people, and changing the rules of advertising will not diminish Norwegian companies from wanting to advertise their goods. back in the 80's Norway had a ban on cigarette advertising, so Marlboro launched a clothing/lifestyle brand, blue jeans and other cowboy style clothes. With their competitors hobbled by the advertising ban, perhaps that was even more effective.
So, famous alcohol brands launched soda water, mineral water, and even glassware. One company has music CDs. They advertise those instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling your vote or selling yourself into slavery or accepting licenses in conflict with rights granted by local consumer laws. Some things we don't want assigned a value that can be traded. The EU has decided that the right to privacy includes not being tracked on the…
But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?
[flagged]
"actually" stands as a weasel word here. Trying to use the internet w/o an adblock is a daunting experience. When I have tried: I am, yet, to see a single relevant ad shown to me, it's especially funny if you live in a country where you don't speak the local language - the browser preferences/headers(accept-language) are ignored altogether, so pretty much everything "targeted" is entirely useless.
However, receiving an online invitations to learn that programming language is still funny enough. Car ads are funny too, especially if you don't drive at all. Local pizza deliveries, when the same chain won't deliver to the place you live (the IP location is pretty spot on). That kind of stuff: "actually" irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Meta collect so many data about you for that purpose. Data which then can be used for purpose we didnt accept in the first place. If you remove this kind of advertising you remove a big reason to collect and keep these data. "Why people are so vehemently against leaving their door open for the amazon delivery guy to put the package they ordered indoor instead of outside in the rain, they pay for a…
> Data which then can be used for purpose we didnt accept in the first place. The obvious counter-argument is that, somewhere in the 100(+?)-page ToS, User Agreement, EULA, Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy documentation, you did. We really need to make new laws to force companies to explain, in plain (terse) English, what they're doing with our data -- everyone knows nobody reads those documents.
Facebook's EULA is over four thousand pages long [1]. Burying info in a bunch of legal text does not constitute informed consent in the EU.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I donno, I know I'm in the minority but I agree with the parent. Facebook isn't going to people's homes and rifling through drawers. They're using information people willigly share in their profiles. They're not selling personally identifiable information. They're selling generalized group info on categories people fall into for targeted ads. I don't understand how this is a privacy violation or unethical. Especially…
lmao no, you're either misinformed or a bad actor. when they start tracking me through services they don't own, when they retain data on me indefinitely and purchase other data sources to do entity resolution, when they refuse to let me see what they have on me and refuse to let me set policies on what I'm comfortable with them having, when they partner with Walmart and CCTV providers to spy on me as I go throughout…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling your vote or selling yourself into slavery or accepting licenses in conflict with rights granted by local consumer laws. Some things we don't want assigned a value that can be traded. The EU has decided that the right to privacy includes not being tracked on the…
But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?