261–270 of 409 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then, some random guy says he doesn't think Facebook's interpretation is right, a court agrees, and all of those billions of dollars have gone to waste. so when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made? >No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook, pretty sure there was all sorts of conversations with Facebook and others over at least 5 years where it was quite cl…
> so when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made? I think what's being characterized as crazy is that the laws as written are at best vague. It takes years to find out what they actually mean in implementable detail. This makes it very difficult to comply. Have you read through GDPR? I have. It talks a lot about "reasonable measures" and includes vast swaths of other laws wh…
GDPR is a radical step forward considering how poor the situation was. We're talking about a fundamental right to privacy. It was absolutely expected that it would shake some businesses, that's why it was announced years before implementation. Also, the courts don't come suddenly stab companies in the back out of nowhere. There was and there is a lot of pedagogy around it and usually the cases escalates gradually with warnings. The ones getting fines are clearly the ones who are still trying to do it the old way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then, some random guy says he doesn't think Facebook's interpretation is right, a court agrees, and all of those billions of dollars have gone to waste. so when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made? >No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook, pretty sure there was all sorts of conversations with Facebook and others over at least 5 years where it was quite cl…
> so when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made? I think what's being characterized as crazy is that the laws as written are at best vague. It takes years to find out what they actually mean in implementable detail. This makes it very difficult to comply. Have you read through GDPR? I have. It talks a lot about "reasonable measures" and includes vast swaths of other laws wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.
>This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friend recommendations on Facebook are so creepy. I have an unused, empty Facebook account that recommends connecting with people I know in real life, even if I don't use WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Oculus, or other Facebook products. Some of these people recommended to me might have given Facebook access to their phone contacts, and that's how Facebook associated me with them. Or that's what I believe happened. I…
I once went to a party and a friend of mine brought a new girl he was dating. First time I met her. We did no digital communication that evening. Next day Facebook was recommending her as a friend. I do have FB Messenger and Whatsapp on my phone. Still that's creepy.
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 not "some random guy". It's noyb and they're doing an important job. They not just "saying this and that" but do try to get the actual laws enforced which is what they did here. You can learn more about them here: https://noyb.eu/en/our-detailed-concept
The "random guy" you've probably actually meant is Max Schrems and his history is also quite noteworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no way facebook would just throw up it's hands and say "we have no incentive to find a way to advertise to a population of 750 million people." And yet, this is exactly what they do repeatedly [1] [2] [3]. 1 - https://www.vice.com/en/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to... 2 - https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2022/02/08/facebook-threat... 3 - https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/google-is-threatening-to-k...
I would suggest reading some of the sources of those stories instead of just the headlines ^^ (Spoilers: the reality of the “threatens to leave Europe” headline is a much less click-baity “lists ‘leaving Europe’ as one of many possible paths to take, but one they would prefer to avoid”)
This seem to be exactly the sentence one would use to respectfully threaten someone else (try it with a different theme, it might be clearer: "we are exploring all possible solutions to the conflict, going nuclear is just one of the way but one we would prefer to avoid")
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…
I should be able to choose complete privacy.
Anything less, regardless of what corporations or government agencies say or agree, is illegitimate. And it shows that the governance agencies are illegitimate too.
It shouldn't be that it is assumed I am a criminal and that as crimes occur online, my data should be collected. Not should it be assumed that my data should be monetisable by intermediaries.
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.
This isn't possible anymore as you need to burn thousands to get enough learning to get scale with Facebook, especially if you're in the US with an audience that uses iPhones.
Google Search ads still work, because they own the whole stack and they aren't impacted by attribution, but the prices have been going up significantly as people move spend towards channels with better attribution.
All of this legislation and privacy advocacy is just a gift to Amazon/Google/Apple - everything is first party data for these "portal" businesses. Their ads will still work, and they'll have no real competition in direct-response marketing.
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…