181–190 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is one major bait and switch strategy. In the first step, you get everyone to invest into your platform. You provide some valuable services to people, and they sign an implicit contract as a result. In the second step, you reap what you sow. You switch the platform entirely and change its core nature and functionality. It's hard to stop using Facebook when everyone else is using Facebook, and this fact means…
How has Facebook changed its core nature?
I should also say that it's more general than Meta. Google are also notorious for doing stuff like this. About time we start legislating against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we are being conquered by google and facebook already. them leaving would be the exact opposite.
Any civilization that calls its citizens making a product choice "conquest" is terminally coddled and isn't going to make it through the century to come.
this is even worse in smaller and in less developed countries. they are most certainly being conquered.
and i don't get what you are trying to say. i am terminally coddled because i view google and facebook as conquerors? what does that even mean?
This is government overreach. These are novelty/fun apps. They are not critical infrastructure or needed in any way. This would be like a court ordering a local bar to serve more than just beer and wine, to accomodate people who like sake and soju. You have free choice to use the social platforms that you want to use. Really don't understand this kind of action tbh.
Let me offer a different opinion. Facebook is a massive part of social media. Billions of users. It is apart of society in its sheer size. A society decided “we want to make this better” and acted appropriately. I think it’s a noble pursuit for a society to attempt to reduce the clearly negative aspects of social media. There is no real freedom of choice. The network effect cements big players positions. Try telling…
but there is? simply choose to not use facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because things in the State should help people, not exploit them. If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop?
> If the thing, in this case, a corporation, is harming people, why not force it to stop? Lack of a messaging app is harming people? Let's be serious here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a level of investment we put in the platforms we use. This comment is akin to asking farmers cut off from repairing their equipment "why don't you buy tractors from a different company instead of fighting to fix your existing ones?" The investment in the case of social media is the network you've built. In my country most local events are announced primarily on facebook for example.
That isn't a good comparison at all. "Don't use it" is a valid choice. I use it. None of my kids do. It's also "free" for you to use. So maybe stop trying to force them to do things while providing you a "free" service.
As a European, I’m glad that the influence of big, potentially dangerous companies is being kept in check. From the start of October, Meta is completely switching off political ads and now I can look forward to my feed stopping with tabloids, politics and Russian propaganda and going back to technical curiosities and capybaras.
I, as a European, am worried that these rulings, regulations, and the prevailing mindset will lead to companies leaving and result in technological stagnation, due to our inability to compete with global markets. Of course, there is something to be said about the dangers, effectiveness, and societal impact of social media. But companies should have the right to decide how they conduct their business. They should also…
Nope - not if it is to the detriment to society ( as decided by society via democratic means ).
In the UK - when radio and TV came along, society recognized the power of these platforms and the danger of how they could amplify single voices with money in an anti-democratic way. As such political advertising on such platforms very tightly controlled.
In addition there are overall limits on campaign spending.
Then along comes companies like Facebook and money powering political ad campaigns comes in through the back door, and in addition a lack of transparency on the overall spend as it's now much easier to hide.
Moves to curb this is simply society re-asserting it's existing rules, not some new imposition.
Judgement (dutch): https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025... The judgement requires Meta to change their platforms within 2 weeks so that the user's choice is persistent. If not implemented in 2 weeks, there is a daily penalty of €100'000, up to a maximum of €5 million.
Fines up to 5 million Euros against meta Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
That is the implication. The point of the first fine isn't to actually hurt Meta. It's to signal that there will be consequences, that the excuse of "but we thought it was legal" is gone now and give them one final chance to get their act together.
It's to pre-emptively clear away any possibility for Meta to appeal to either higher courts or the court of public opinion that they're being treated unfairly. Which they would do if you immediately hit them with a say, €5 billion fine.
They need to just ban the ad model and make subscriptions (including free with no ads, if the provider wants it) mandatory. I don't think people understand how the economics of these apps (and websites) work, and it's been so long now that their incorrect assumptions (the feeds are free and the greedy providers shove ads in them) have turned into bedrock beliefs. You pay for instagram with your personal data, which i…
It's not quite that simple though. The problem is that they are not simply showing you relevant ads, they actively attempt to deliver an outcome the ad is trying to achieve.
On the surface this is relatively benign, Nike wants to sell shoes, they run ads and optimise towards shoe sales, and Meta makes that happen.
But what happens when people run political advertising? What happens when crypto companies promote scams?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the US is going to invade Europe and enforce a techno-capitalist oligarchy on it?
Of course not. I do think that the US might get bored of defending a continent that refuses to lift a finger to defend itself --- or put much effort into anything that isn't regulating, censoring, or fining someone, and then someone else will invade Europe and impose a techno-capitalist oligarchy or worse on it.
The election choices are between some-one is clearly senile, or somebody who clearly has no substance and, well, Trump.
Other recent candidates include sons of previous presidents, or wives of previous presidents.
And you are worried about Europe.
Europe is worried about Europe - but in the context of catching what the US has via dark money flowing through tech platforms driving politics.