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

Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 506 posts

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#221

Post by throwaway2245 »

avianlyric wrote: post #204
throwaway2245 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that those laws have been updated: that EU law is initially being adopted with appropriate changes, i.e. it won't reference the EU any more and will reference the UK instead (and isn't defined around citizenship anyway)

I have a similar understanding, what will be interesting is how the UK will enforce its rules. Facebook has its HQ in Ireland, which notable not in the UK. This also applies to most other US companies. Kinda makes me suspect that some companies will just ignore UK data protection law on the basis the UK can't do squat to enforce it.

Yes, same. Also, Facebook has Nick Clegg on staff.

That suggests they've spent 2 years explicitly lobbying for whatever UK law changes they want, and will probably quickly get them.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#222

Post by godelski »

cma wrote: post #133
dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?

An algorithm optimizes for engagement, so you can't rebut a racist or conspiratorial post without de facto endorsing and spreading it.

I like to say "hate porn" because I think people understand it better. Clicks are clicks. You're more likely to click a sexist article about doctors and it's more likely to go viral than a post about the complexities and nuances of wealth distribution and tax mechanics.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#223

Post by alisonkisk »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #196
ironmagma wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more like de-globalization, which could very well be a good thing given the multitudes of problems that have arisen out of globalization.

Living in a country where a global total war and several occupations of the most evil totalitarian regimes in history is still within living memory, and having been under an isolationist totalitarian power, comments like these make me shudder. Globalization has some problems. The benefits so far have massively outweighed them, especially if you take the long view. How about we try to fix those faults, instead of retr…

Are you imagining that globalization will somehow create peace and prosperity between Chinese, Arabs, Jews, USAmericans, billionaires, cocoa growing child slaves, and the rest?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#224

Post by GreenWatermelon »

thereisnospork wrote: post #81
oblio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not naive, that's why we have laws. Without laws, the people/groups you mention would just use the law of the jungle - might makes right - to get what they want. At least with laws they have to somewhat accommodate this process to get what they want, frequently compromising along the way. I'm not saying that all laws are perfect, but let's not get overwhelming cynicism get the best of us.

The point is regulations (and laws) are just tools - like a hammer they don't have inherent 'goodness'. A regulation can protect abusive business practices as easily as protect consumer rights. Might doesn't make right but might writes. (regulations)

As you said, regulations and laws are tools. What you criticise about regulations can be said about laws. A law can protect a vile dictator as easily as protect a helpless citizen.

The problem isn't the laws or regulations, but the fact that we leave corrupt politicians to write them.

Of course, fixing that is much easier than done, because even if you have a functioning democracy, corrupt politicians are still propped up by propaganda. Corporate's wishing to write the laws contribute much to support those politicians with lobbying and propaganda (Murdoch news empire)

To solve this you need a well-educated, politically conscious population, which is easier said than done.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#225

Post by ricardo81 »

Hokusai wrote: post #215
ricardo81 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords. Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other…

> due to the technical limitations of how they store information. Has nothing to do with technical limitations and everything with engagement metrics. Facebook does not want to show you what you want to see, they want to show you what will hook you and keep you in the platform. If anything, it takes more resources to show their view than just a time posted order.

Not sure I agree, because you can fiddle between "most popular" vs "most recent" and sometimes the "most recent" cannot be seen at all! It's as if they're unavailable, or, too many hops away to be available.

And if it's a case of guessing what's going to be engaged more with, I want to see everything and make my own choice.

wrt to resources, perhaps they index one or the other and they make their choice rather than mine.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#226

Post by 0x426577617265 »

taurath wrote: post #161
dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?

It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissoluti…

Well said, really sums up the problem. People I know and even work with have fallen in this trap and I have no idea how to get them back out. It’s like they are a completely different person. It’s not just politics either - it’s this overwhelming amount of information that they are being fed about everything.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#227

Post by jacquesm »

young_unixer wrote: post #205

I wonder where companies would draw the line of "This is too much, let's leave the EU market". A naïve answer would be: as long as there's a positive ROI. But I guess all the headaches must be taken into account.

> "This is too much, let's leave the EU market".

Please do.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#228

Post by pavon »

another-dave wrote: post #157
frereubu wrote: post #130

I think the headline here is a bit clickbaity. The post-EU UK has adopted the EU's GDPR legislation wholesale, and Facebook explicitly says that data will not be treated differently than that of EU citizens. So while this might "avoid" EU privacy rules in some stretched interpretation of "avoid", in fact it will be avoiding them by applying an identical set of rules. That is, unless the UK government changes its data…

I don't think it's another kettle of fish, I think it's exactly what this article is about — the only reason for them to make this change is as a pre-cursor to a divergence in the UK/EU privacy laws (EU further strengthening their laws after Brexit, or UK weakening theirs). They've given a vague statement to defend this being necessary — "Like other companies, Facebook has had to make changes to respond to Brexit" —…

I agree that preparation for potential divergence of the law is a major reason for this change, but even if that doesn't happen it still makes sense from a jurisdictional point of view. Having interactions between a US company and UK citizen be beholden to EU law enforcement, when neither of those countries are part of the EU just complicates things for no good reason. There are likely other complications regarding movement of data between UK, EU and US that can be simplified by applying those equivalent UK-GDRP laws on movement of data, but now just between UK and US.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#229

Post by pilsetnieks »

uncomputation wrote: post #213
pilsetnieks wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, your data was first moved into the hands of an American company by you . You still have 15 days to force them to delete everything under threat of GDPR.

Sorry to be anti-capitalist real quick but what is it with HN and dying for Big Tech/1%? Do you think FB would show you the same loyalty?

I was actually talking about this one person's situation. They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die.

It's like asking why can't I get my garbage back because I threw it in the recycling bin but they incinerated it.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#230

Post by criddell »

uncomputation wrote: post #209
criddell wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a lot harder for things to get seen Do you think it was easier in the age before the internet to be gain an audience?

Not GP, but I believe they meant it is a lot harder for things to get seen on the Internet now than it was on the Internet before, not IRL before.

That might be it. The GGP was talking about the history of civilization, so it could be either way.
Post reply on HN