Facebook: We don’t need your consent • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#21

Post by cmcd » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #9

rock_hard wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…

IMO, ads should be made illegal, but that's not the point here. Facebook is perfectly free to show ads to people, they are just not free to track people. They are trying to use ads as a justification for tracking here, which is the contested point. And before you answer that ads without tracking don't pay the bills, that's honestly Facebook's problem.

The alternative to ads is subscription services, which already exist. If people prefered subscription social media to ad based they would flock to those, but they don't.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#22

Post by weinzierl » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #8

rock_hard wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…

The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads. GDPR should be used for exactly this purpose - it is a protection against companies collecting and using personal data in this way. Facebook has the choice to show ads, just not personalised ones. What is specifically being argued about is that Facebook tried to claim ads were a contractua…

> The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads.

And yet Facebook is not alone doing this. While almost all the medium and small sized sites ask for consent nowadays the big players just seem to be immune. My go to example is spiegel.de which is one of Germany's largest newspapers. Full of trackers, full of personalized ads and I have never seen them asking for my consent.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#23

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #7

thenewnewguy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.

Just replace "ads" with "personalized ads" in the parent FB is free because they can pay for it with personalized ads. I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.

The reason dumber ads pay so little is because the personalized ones exist. It’s hard to say what dumb ads would be worth if they were the only ads.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#24

Post by twobat » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

As an user I feel that GDPR changed nothing. Google, Facebook and whatever else tracks you to the bones did not change one bit (for me).

As a sys-admin, GDPR invented all sorts of jobs. Jobs well intended. But these jobs are filled by people that are neither lawyers nor IT people. Whenever I interact with them I feel like they just want to check some boxes that makes the org compliant and go home. They don't enforce or apply GDPR, they enforce those checkboxes.

* all of the above in my limited experience.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#25

Post by tcd » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

The GDPR is a failure anyway. US tech giants are still globbling up masses of data even if the individual hasn't consented.

For example, the "contacts" permission should be disabled on OS's in the EU as it's impossible to prove the user has constend to sharing that information, yet Google launches an API in chrome to access the users contacts which totally won't be abused.

Alternatively you can gobble up data and "accidentally leak" it through an open MongoDB or AWS instance, will anyone go to jail? Unlikely, nobody really cares.

I doubt Facebook is going to change its ways any time soon, they're simply too big to fail at this point

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#26

Post by kevlawrence » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

sigwinch28 wrote: post #10

rock_hard wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…

The issue is not advertising, but "to aggregate user interests and track people on the internet". While advertising is not illegal under the GDPR, collecting an individual's data for marketing or advertising purposes without a "basis" (as defined in the GDPR) is. The plaintiff is arguing about data privacy, whereas Facebook's lawyer is playing the advertising card as a counter. The plaintiff is unhappy about the way…

If they lose this case, do you think it would it leave Facebook a liability for no longer being able to fulfill that contract? I.e. you can’t share my data, now where are my personalized ads that you promised?

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#27

Post by Havoc » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

Congrats on finding a way to circumvent the letter of the law.

Think they're about to have an harsh encounter with spirit of the law & European thinking about privacy & consent though.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#28

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

while they may have a point their arguments are not well articulated

> Europe’s strict privacy laws

actually it's EU's privacy regulation

> Facebook openly admitted that it has been collecting and processing data without users’ consent

They said that they ve been collecting WITH consent, at least with their definition of consent

> To prove that no one ordered advertising from Facebook, we conducted a neutral study by the Austrian Gallup Institute. The result is devastating for Facebook: Only 4% of users want advertising,

... And i bet only 4% want to pay taxes too. polls are not legal documents. Also, "wanted advertising" is very different from "accepted advertising as part of the terms"

> Facebook does not give users a full copy of all their data

I believe facebook does give all their personal data,but maybe they are looking for derived data that facebook has stored for them? that's not personal data and it can be particularly tricky if it has been combined with other people's data , for example to train a neural net

In any case, i don't think facebook cares too much anymore and will just pay another yearly fine for operating in the EU. Even if FB asks for consent in every second page, people will click yes.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#29

Post by JohnFen » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

hellofunk wrote: post #2

Time and time we are proven again and again that Facebook has become the emblem of how far technology can go to support pure malicious intention with widespread support.

Indeed. Facebook is one of the scummiest tech companies in existence.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#30

Post by sigwinch28 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

kevlawrence wrote: post #26

sigwinch28 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not advertising, but "to aggregate user interests and track people on the internet". While advertising is not illegal under the GDPR, collecting an individual's data for marketing or advertising purposes without a "basis" (as defined in the GDPR) is. The plaintiff is arguing about data privacy, whereas Facebook's lawyer is playing the advertising card as a counter. The plaintiff is unhappy about the way…

If they lose this case, do you think it would it leave Facebook a liability for no longer being able to fulfill that contract? I.e. you can’t share my data, now where are my personalized ads that you promised?

IANAL, but I think that clause would become null and void.

User: "hey Facebook where's the personalised ads you promised me?" Facebook: "that clause was found to be illegal, and we have notified you that it is unenforceable by either party."