Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#191

Post by thecrazyone »

tomp wrote: post #170
thecrazyone wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that inhibit someone's else's rights? Companies are made of people after all, no?

But they have certain "privileges" granted by society (i.e. by consensus of the majority of he population). This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people; once that ceases to be true, the rights or privileges of the company/-ies should be modified or revoked.

This is where I have a problem. "This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people" said another way is collective good trumps (no pun) individual liberties, this is just communism worded differently. If you were to logically implement or even deduce what this implies is communism and that is bad as seen by both empirically and logical (deontological) evidence/proofs.

What has the majority done to build a company that they can take it away? If you say they've made transactions or buy buying the stuff the company makes, then I'd say they got their money's worth and that's it. There was no surplus. Additional rights were not part of that deal. So that can't be an objection.

Let's unpack this. As an example, I'm working at this company. I do no harm to others, neither does the company, but the society has the right to take this away because majority says so (for whatever reason)? So if you can take away somebody's job and their property, the company, because a majority says so, I don't see how that's ethical.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#192

Post by thecrazyone »

pvaldes wrote: post #179
thecrazyone wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you do agree to a contract when you use free basics

We are talking about different things here. For example, lets suppose that you visit your favourite digital newspaper. After reading an article or a howto you see a "like this article?/was this howto useful?/Send us your feedback" button. It seems (I can't confirm it so I could be wrong, just hear it on the TV news yesterday), that facebook was saving silently all this info about preferences from lots of people that…

Well, _creep_ _shmeep_ (you're just using an ad hominem) you agreed to it when you signed up to free basics. All activities that FB does is according to their ToS and their privacy policies. If you agreed to that, then they are doing it legitimately.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#193

Post by thecrazyone »

ath92 wrote: post #178
thecrazyone wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they buy other companies, note: 1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory 2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed against. edit: formatting

1) Yes, it's voluntary, but the interests of the consumers aren't necessarily taken into account. Only the shareholders of the companies being bought stand to gain from the transactions. 2) Google/Fb gives these companies an offer at a moment when it still makes sense to buy them (i.e. when they can both win from the acquisition). If the company being bought decides to decline, Google or FB or whatever monolith has w…

Are you taking the general community's well being into account when you ask for a raise in your salary? You know, if and when you do ask for a raise you're making the product your company produces that much more expensive, you're not adhering to your own rules.

In any voluntary transaction, both parties gain out of it. People who are not parties to that transaction have no business in it.

> 1) Yes, it's voluntary, but the interests of the consumers aren't necessarily taken into account. Only the shareholders of the companies being bought stand to gain from the transactions

Yes of course, because they are trading their private property. When you buy vegetables from the supermarket, can someone complain that you're not taking into consideration other people's interests, namely there's less food for everyone else. And also that only you and the supermarket stand to gain out of the transaction. This is an reductio ad absurdum of your statement

> 2) Google/Fb gives these companies an offer at a moment when it still makes sense to buy them (i.e. when they can both win from the acquisition). If the company being bought decides to decline, Google or FB or whatever monolith has ways of destroying them: - By buying their competitor instead of them, and heavily investing in them - By just building the feature themselves, and potentially fighting a very expensive legal battle

Okay, I see your logical problem, you want good to be done in one instance, but you IMHO fail to see the consequences if you logically apply that concept to its conclusion.

Again, voluntary transaction. If the startup refuses, it's voluntary. If FB or Google goes and invests elsewhere it's their money, their business. Who are we to tell them what to do with their money. Would you be okay if they told what to do with money you've earned? All things you've mentioned are coercive i.e. they are all based on things people have agreed on in written documents. Concretely, if they (Google/FB) buy a competitor, it's their money, their business. If they build the feature themselves, their money, they don't owe this startup their money, they refused when offered anyway. If they fight a legal battle, it's still legitimate because both parties (Google/FB and startup) have all agreed to work with local laws (US or otherwise).

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#194

Post by thecrazyone »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #154
thecrazyone wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they buy other companies, note: 1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory 2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed against. edit: formatting

Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting…

> Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is"

Everybody is not there, even on Facebook, there is no such social network yet.

> and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users.

Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook has paid premium prices for the former two and gave a pretty high offer for snapchat. They wouldn't do that if they're concerned ( of course, neither you nor I can confirm their emotional state, but we can derive useful conclusions from their actions)

> For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video?

Have you stopped using facebook? Then why should they care? They will care IMO, but the point is by continuing to use facebook, you've shown that you weigh the benefits of facebook to be more than the costs/annoyances. So, you're happy enough as far as they're concerned, they might try and make you happier but that's left to them :)

Edit: Whoops! I hit submit before completing my last sentence

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#195

Post by tomp »

thecrazyone wrote: post #191
tomp wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they have certain "privileges" granted by society (i.e. by consensus of the majority of he population). This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people; once that ceases to be true, the rights or privileges of the company/-ies should be modified or revoked.

This is where I have a problem. "This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people" said another way is collective good trumps (no pun) individual liberties, this is just communism worded differently. If you were to logically implement or even deduce what this implies is communism and that is bad as seen by both empirically and logical (deontological) evidence/proofs…

Couldn't you say the same thing about tax in a (what we usually describe as) capitalist system?

In any case, companies grant privileges as well as obligations - e.g. limited liability, and they can outlive any of their employees. It's a trade-off; if you don't like it, you van always do business as a person, then noone can take that away - but you also don't get these privileges.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#197

Post by heavenlyblue »

thecrazyone wrote: post #194
heavenlyblue wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting…

> Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" Everybody is not there, even on Facebook, there is no such social network yet. > and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook has paid premium prices for the former two and gave a pretty high offer for snapchat. They wouldn't do that if they're concerned ( of course, neither you n…

It's harder to stop using Facebook when there's no proper alternative.

More importantly, the functionality of Facebook can be replicated by anyone with more-then a few years of experience in software.

So you're saying that Facebook does have proper competition? No, they don't. They were lucky enough to be at the exact place at the exact time to build the sturdy population of users. And now most of the users are paying for their luck.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#198

Post by cabalamat »

thecrazyone wrote: post #173
cabalamat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would -- at least in theory -- be easier for the European peoples to regulate them so they act in their interests.

Well, I'm sure you've heard of company restructuring. A company HQ can be moved anywhere, and a company restructured for legal freedom and tax efficiency. So, in all likelihood the EU Googles and FB will be structured similarly (maybe to evade EU laws if it were to become restrictive). And you're back on square one. Instead I suggest vote with your dollar, choose a different service that better suits your needs than…

What I had in mind was a totally separate company, based in Europe, not a European branch of Facebook/Google etc.

Kinda like the Chinese are doing by having Chinese clones of all the big UIS technology companies.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#199

Post by otherme1 »

matt4077 wrote: post #150
otherme1 wrote: post #27

Make no mistake: this is a form of taxation. Our (i'm spanish) minister of economy has been very imaginative in the last 4 years to find new sources of revenue.

Please don't spread these conspiracy theories. As just one of many arguments against: Such decisions are subject to judicial reviews (i. e. Facebook can sue). Spanish judges are just as independent from the executive as they are in most countries, once they are appointed. What motivation would these judges have to undermine the rule of law (something they studied and have worked in their whole life), when they can't…

You probably know that Facebook is not going to the judges. They would pay the peanuts just to forget the issue.

The EU countries are playing this game since the crisis started in 2008. Spanish politicians just want their share. All of the Ireland-Google issue was exactly the same but bigger: even if they abide the law, politicians tweak a new one just to milk big companies. They just take the money from where it is.

I don't know about conspiracies you talk. This is all happening in day light and applauded by the people.

Re: Spain Fines Facebook Over Tracking Users Without Consent

#200

Post by setgree »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #110
tiagobertolo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is your government capitalist? You are drowned in bureaucracy, taxes and debt not capitalism. I am not taking this story as an example. Most of southern Europe countries are far from being capitalist.

He said "crony capitalist", which is quite a different thing to capitalist.

I personally prefer the word "corporatist" for this phenomenon to avoid this ambiguity. Crony-captalist has an anti-capitalist tinge, which I don't favor, but is one reason why I think is has been adopted broadly.
Post reply on HN