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

Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 385 posts

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#271

Post by yayana »

newscracker wrote: post #218

Things like this make me very, very angry! So many missteps over the years. So many things bungled. So many dark patterns to fool users. Yet, where is the mass exodus of employees from Facebook? If you're still working in any company that Facebook owns in the technology or privacy or legal front, don't you realize what harm you're contributing to? And you're still ok with that? Don't you have a choice? I'm appalled t…

An employee Exodus would require a drastic surprise for those paying close attention to the company.

For various reasons, I would estimate Google and Microsoft have historically had the possibility of recruiting from about half the senior Engineers in my niche.. Facebook and Amazon are a bit lower, maybe as low as a quarter.

For companies bought by these companies there is a general readjustment as up to about half the engineers who would have refused a job offer from them leave while trying to take the most value in vesting schedules and line up something elsewhere.

The "Exoduses" from incompatible buyouts don't really make headlines because 50% over ~3 years with replacement is hard to see from the outside and most tech mergers are catastrophes if both companies' lines were actually supposed to remain profitable.

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#272

Post by rosser »

ovao wrote: post #104
mrweasel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could easily argue that tracking users behaviour is a safety issue. But fair enough, how about the loan business, you aren't allowed to charge overly high interest on loans. That's neither a safety or environmental issue.

Predatory interest rates frankly don't concern or particularly bother me. I think, for me, that only becomes a point of concern if a person is simply mentally unfit to make such decisions for themselves. In such cases the general guidance that someone else deemed fit should be responsible for that person's decisions applies, which goes back to the point you made earlier.

Even when those usurious, predatory rates are disproportionately charged to poorer people, who can afford to bear them less? Because that's how it works: price discrimination against the people least able to bear it.

But, hey. Why should I care, if I'm not getting charged those rates, right?

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#273

Post by kodablah »

rosser wrote: post #247
kodablah wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do mean that a government is less trustworthy than an independendent corporation? That a corporation will better look after the interests of its citizens than a government? Quite frequently, yes to both questions. Choice is key and many often feel more empowered to individually choose their company than their government.

How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice? When there isn't meaningful competition in a market, it's specious to point to the abstract possibility of competition as an argument for sucking it up and cozying up to the monopolist, who has structured your arrangement with them to limit your freedom and recourse as much as practicable. A prof…

> How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice?

Oversight. If you want meaningful competition and don't have it due to harmful monopolization, that's the government's problem to solve. Nobody's asking for self-regulating companies here. It's very important to understand which forces can or cannot actually eliminate competition and choice. If there is a path towards choice, I'll take it. Often that path is unclear of course.

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#274

Post by tedunangst »

icebraining wrote: post #260
tedunangst wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you can't DoS if it's denied. What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?

> What does that mean? It means you can't deny service if the consent is not granted by the user. > Why did you link to your parent comment? Because in it I try to explain why donatj's theory that FB can simply deny service if people don't consent seems incorrect to me.

Alas, reading donatj's comment again doesn't explain why it's wrong.

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#275

Post by rosser »

tlrobinson wrote: post #73
mrweasel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not allow to operate that way in most other businesses anyway. You can't sell leaded paint, even if clearly marked. You can't sell unsafe cars, even if you tell people that even low speed impacts will kill them. There's a ton of stuff you can't do, even with clear consent, because otherwise people who lack the means to understand the compromises or afford the safer choices will suffer.

Those are safety/environmental issues. Showing you ads based on your preferences is not.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that machine learning can reliably predict when, for example, a bipolar person is going to enter a manic phase.

Should ad companies be able to model someone's mental illness and show them ads for gambling sites, or whatever, when their brain is acutely more susceptible to them?

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#276

Post by gamblor956 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #263
zzzcpan wrote: post #179

If websites are going to ask for consent to tracking or deny access to the service only allowing to take the data, delete account and leave, the whole thing will become meaningless. Users will just learn to blindly accept everything, as this is a huge annoyance to them.

The GDPR does not allow you to make access contingent on PII data collection, unless your service cannot possibly work without it.

I'm not sure why you keep spreading this FUD. The GDPR applies to all personal data, not just tracking data, and Facebook is useless without your personal data. IOW, FB can make access contingent upon agreeing to data collection.

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#277

Post by icebraining »

tedunangst wrote: post #274
icebraining wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does that mean? It means you can't deny service if the consent is not granted by the user. > Why did you link to your parent comment? Because in it I try to explain why donatj's theory that FB can simply deny service if people don't consent seems incorrect to me.

Alas, reading donatj's comment again doesn't explain why it's wrong.

Ah, damn, I linked to the wrong comment :|

Well, here are the two where I try to explain my view:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031849

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031513

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#278

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #260
tedunangst wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you can't DoS if it's denied. What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?

> What does that mean? It means you can't deny service if the consent is not granted by the user. > Why did you link to your parent comment? Because in it I try to explain why donatj's theory that FB can simply deny service if people don't consent seems incorrect to me.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#279

Post by rosser »

kodablah wrote: post #273
rosser wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice? When there isn't meaningful competition in a market, it's specious to point to the abstract possibility of competition as an argument for sucking it up and cozying up to the monopolist, who has structured your arrangement with them to limit your freedom and recourse as much as practicable. A prof…

> How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice? Oversight. If you want meaningful competition and don't have it due to harmful monopolization, that's the government's problem to solve. Nobody's asking for self-regulating companies here. It's very important to understand which forces can or cannot actually eliminate competition and choice. If…

The government which we're "stuck" with, and which we shouldn't trust because it's actively dangerous to our freedoms, is what's supposed to protect those freedoms from predatory companies?

How's that working out for us?

Re: Facebook now denying access unless EU users opt-in to tracking

#280

Post by the-dude »

icebraining wrote: post #157
mpweiher wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? When I get on a train in Germany, I open the door and step inside. The train station is usually even simpler.

Same at least in Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France.

Not true anymore in every NL station : we have entrance gates, no ticket, no entry to the boarding area.
Post reply on HN