201–210 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
kinda like what radical reactionary (R) state legislatures have been doing with abortion restrictions since 1973 until the Dobbs decision, right? Funny that. Not.
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple solution. Don't open instagram.
And how is this helpful? Is this a solution? What if the app-in-question was a different one? Not using Instagram at that would be very helpful, indeed...
I feel there is a risk in having the cost of privacy getting transferred to the user that we have yet to actually confront, and it worries me that we are not doing that. I am not exactly breaking the news: If companies make less money through ads, they have to make it "some other way" (which so far has resolved in "making the user pay directly"). A lot of people have been suggesting that it's not their business to fi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is crazy. If the EU just wants to fully outright ban advertising - then do it - but set a standard and stick to it.
Tracked advertising is not all advertising.
Let's say facebook runs an ad on its platform to my website with a url of site.com/fbad. Then I can see how many people clicked on the ad on facebook and how many people converted on that webpage. There are people on this site who will tell you, and FULLY believe that that is TOO much tracking and is morally wrong.
This is a crazy way of making laws, IMO. To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language about how consent can be gathered and what it means. Meanwhile, Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law. Then, some random guy says he doesn…
> No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook, having a real conversation about what they're doing, then talked about it with ethics professionals and researchers and tried to draft a forward-looking law that will make the whole system better? This would never work because Facebook is uninterested in making "the whole system better". Their entire goal is to make money off of user data, and they have zero…
> Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law.
It's valid to say "Facebook isn't the one who should be expected to have citizens' best interests at heart", but the incentives of regulators and Facebook are absolutely aligned in that both are looking for a law that will be followed.
This is a crazy way of making laws, IMO. To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language about how consent can be gathered and what it means. Meanwhile, Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law. Then, some random guy says he doesn…
This is a fight for the money Facebook is generating. The court, the law, the administrations, the bureaucrats, the media, the lawyers, the judges are all complicit. Using the law to say, take over someone house without reason will be outrageous (though it does happen in "lesser" countries than the EU).
But in the EU, you can still get people to look the other side if you explain it by Facebook is evil, Facebook is tracking you, Facebook is addicting you, Facebook is generating lots of money, etc... Of course, you have to realize, this is the same government that will sell your blood if they think they can make profit out of it.
Welcome to the Jungle.
I feel there is a risk in having the cost of privacy getting transferred to the user that we have yet to actually confront, and it worries me that we are not doing that. I am not exactly breaking the news: If companies make less money through ads, they have to make it "some other way" (which so far has resolved in "making the user pay directly"). A lot of people have been suggesting that it's not their business to fi…
That's just my personal observation. Make of that what you will.
Lack of fine-grained tracking makes it hard for small companies to target niche audiences. It tends to favor big brands who can do TV advertising or other highly non-targeted advertising. There was a point in the early 2010s were small consumer brands could break through the noise for cheap and find their audience. With the GDPR and the subsequent fall of facebook ads that era is sadly coming to an end.
Heh. Facebook's advertising (still targeted because this decision isn't final yet) is desperately trying to sell me some shoes. The same shoes for the last 2 years. For variation it gives me some crap ads from some online stores that are just a frontend for some Aliexpress drop shipping. The line is always the same "Unfortunately we're discontinuing $PRODUCT. Buy now to take advantage of the discount!" I don't see wh…
Previous submissions: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33893240 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33884343 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33890865 ... and more
Meta’s behavioral ads will finally face GDPR privacy reckoning in January - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33893240 - Dec 2022 (59 comments)
Is there a more neutral article we can change the above URL to?
Facebook should just start charging users that don't consent to tracking for targeted advertising. Etc. Problem solved, and we, the shareholders, will hopefully be happy too. It's been truly shit to own Facebook stock the last year.. Let's end this now and get back to writing the growth story. Please.
[1] unless the data is needed for the website to work