Live data from Hacker News

Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

noyb.eu

251–260 of 443 posts

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that if anytime anyone came up with a business model you banned it, that would produce more innovation in business models. But you also wouldn’t get any of the products because you’ve banned all of them. So it seems like a bad way to run an economic bloc. The EU in particular doesn’t even know what they’re doing and none of their poorly drafted “blue is green now because I said so” laws even work. You just ge…

The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement. The GDPR actually makes 90% of them illegal. Enforcement appears to be slowly ramping up. > The value you get from Facebook is the ads are relevant If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of. In reality though the value pe…

> The cookie banners are a result of bad/non-existent enforcement.

Unintended results are part of writing the laws. So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. When the DMA starts enforcement and makes it impossible to block messaging spam because all messengers have to trust each other, that’ll be part of it too.

> If this was true, this ruling would be a nothingburger because everyone would voluntarily opt into the targeted advertising so they can get all that "value" you're speaking of.

No, not all markets clear. If you get a smaller market because not everyone opts in there’s just going to be less stuff in it.

(And I actually think Instagram’s ads are more interesting than, say, my family members who’ve decided to become influencers.)

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#252
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requires continuous free-riding off Is it not these tech companies doing the free riding off of people’s data?

I’ve never understood the argument that it’s the individual people’s data. If you go and run an ad on Facebook you’ll see that the targeting is largely stuff individuals have volunteered. It’s their sex, relationship status, what brands they “follow,” etc. It would be “my” data if Facebook were digging through my phone, looking at all my photos, and offering targeting based on that. It’s their data if I’m effectively…

[deleted]

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I unironically enjoy non-targeted ads. Every time I see one that has nothing to do with my interests, I know that my meticulously tuned home network and browser settings are working.

How do you see ads if you've tuned your browser settings?

1.) I have a work computer that is basically unprotected because it only has Chrome with a very lacking extension whitelist. It lives on its own VLAN because my regular one blackholes all requests to MS and this made my employer not so happy in the past.

2.) My cookie autodelete + adblocking setup means I have to click the "reject cookies" consent on YT once per session. Except one of my filters break the form and it's invisible. My lazy workaround is to disable ublock, click reject and reenable it so the video actually plays. During this ritual I catch a 1-2 second glimpse of a YT ad.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you are saying, although I would prefer an engagement on the merits of the specific points. That said, it is of course possible I overstated my case - the provenance of sources I am finding is not as strong as I would have expected.

I feel that attacking the credibility of a source is fair game. I don't expect someone to refute every single point of an argument if the central thesis of the argument is erroneous.

How did we jump from attacking the credibility of a source to the central thesis of the argument being erroneous? I'm missing the part where that was shown.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#255

In the background to all this do note that the "number 2" executive at Meta is a former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg [0]. Meta see the regulatory situation in the EU and UK as a potentially existential risk. They know what they are doing is bad and lobbying is their number one tactic. They are at the "cigarette company" level of trying to prevent regulation of a business model that is ultimately at risk of be…

Second time at the helm reluctantly exiting the EU it seems.

Nah, he was dropped a year before the brexit referendum as the Conservatives won enough seats they didn't need the lib dems in coalition with them.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#256

As an EU citizen all I can say is: Get fucked. I hope the EU grows a spine and actually doubles down instead of bowing to US pressure. >Fine for Meta more than tenfold from € 28 million to € 390 million. Third case on WhatsApp pending. Starting to get into a range for the fine that makes sense. Give it another tenfold increase and I'm content.

[flagged]

Even if they do it just to annoy Facebook, that might be in line with the popular opinion among their voters.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the standard becomes "make illegal business models that the media gets enough people upset about" (without even a vote where the alternatives [paying for service] are clearly explained), then -yeah- people are going to be left poorer. Europe already endured centuries of this when the majority Christian ethos was that usury & banking were an evil to be banned. This, among other things of course, helped sentence mil…

> If the standard becomes "make illegal business models that the media gets enough people upset about" I think you're giving "the media" too much credit here, it's also very possible that the business models are actually unpopular and people are upset after learning about them. I think in general that's the basis for all the laws we have - a bunch of people thought there should be a law against something and made it.…

I'll preface this by saying that I don't like Meta and am very privacy-conscious.

> it's also very possible that the business models are actually unpopular and people are upset after learning about them.

I am 100% convinced - from people around me - that those who use FB and IG don't give a damn about privacy and would rather it be free of charge. This is clearly a small group of "elite people in the know" (which in this case I consider myself and yourself a part of) deciding this.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#259
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…

> To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation Is it right that a tiny but loud minority be able to ban these ad-supported services for all of society? Going by revealed preferences, most people don't consider targeting advertising to be "spying and psychological manipulation". If they did, usage patte…

Facebook are NOT banned from providing ad-supported services and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Facebook are not even banned from using user surveillance for targeted ads.

All Facebook/Meta are banned from doing is making surveillance a condition of using the site. The user can still opt-in to being tracked if they think it's useful and Facebook can still show ads in any case.

Re: Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

#260

As an EU citizen all I can say is: Get fucked. I hope the EU grows a spine and actually doubles down instead of bowing to US pressure. >Fine for Meta more than tenfold from € 28 million to € 390 million. Third case on WhatsApp pending. Starting to get into a range for the fine that makes sense. Give it another tenfold increase and I'm content.

[flagged]

I'll bait, even though this is quite obvious a low-effort comment without any basis. If you would have read the article, you could have noted the following:

> Max Schrems: "The penalty will go to Ireland - the State that has taken Meta's side and delayed enforcement for more than four years. This case will likely be appealed by Meta, leading to more costs for noyb."

So: No, the money does not go to the ominous "EU leadership", but rather to Ireland, the country which already profits from being a tax and law heaven for Meta and other companies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven

Post reply on HN