301–310 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cookie banners have sapped 3% off global GDP.
Obviously this is satire.
As in: If a rich woman marries her housekeeper and he does the previous things as a part of the marriage, the total production is the same with a lowered GDP.
Cool. So, how does this impact consumers that never used Facebook, but that have shadow profiles for social network inference and ad tracking? Presumably, since Facebook has no way to contact those people, they will just shut down the no-logged-in-but-tracked half of their business in Europe? (If you don't know what I mean by shadow profile: When you first create a Facebook account, it helpfully produces a prepopulat…
As a reminder, this is just the tip of the iceberg : The US has since 2001 built a techno-legal spying system that the Stasi would have been proud of (relying a lot on US companies, especially the GAFAMs), and worse, (ab)used it on non-US people, specifically people located in EUrope (especially as revealed by the Snowden scandal in 2013). Since this violates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in 2015 the Court of…
Cool. So, how does this impact consumers that never used Facebook, but that have shadow profiles for social network inference and ad tracking? Presumably, since Facebook has no way to contact those people, they will just shut down the no-logged-in-but-tracked half of their business in Europe? (If you don't know what I mean by shadow profile: When you first create a Facebook account, it helpfully produces a prepopulat…
It doesn't impact those consumers, but that wasn't what this action by the EU was trying to stop. It looks like this suit as all about users of Facebook and Instagram being forced to agree to tracking to use the service.
Is the reality that they'll be tracked regardless, just now through a thin veil of indirection (as with the shadow profiles)?
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…
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/01/martin-lewis-...
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…
It's really not up to Facebook nor you to decide what is the "fair interpretation of the law".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What entitles you to spy on me? I don't give a shit about your revenue.
It's not my revenue. If you believe any business is evil if it has has paid salaries out of the revenues boosted by efficient advertising, that's your prerogative. I am open to hearing how exactly targeted advertising has damaged our society but I will not accept vague notions of spying and privacy as an argument. Most of the entities powerful enough to spy on you currently, will continue to do so discretely.
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.
Enjoy watching Nissan ads on loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Of course it's a solution. The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. If you don't like it then don't use the app, nobody is forcing you to and you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business.
Actually, we do. It's called democracy and how laws are made that companies have to adhere 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds fairly accurate to me. This is what killed the US-EU Privacy Shield program, twice. That was the government's attempt at creating a way for US companies like Facebook to legally process data of EU citizens under GDPR. It's been struck down by the EU courts, due to our federal government's spy powers and the CLOUD Act, that invalidate any claims US companies make about protecting personal data in their posse…
I was referring to comparing the US intel operation to the Stasi.
But my focus is specifically on non-US citizens, worse, on those of supposedly "allied" nations (some of which have since then built similar systems of their own, but the same caveat applies, and their reach is still not comparable to that of GAFAM/NSA).
Can you see how it becomes a HUGE betrayal of trust after all the post-cold war promises of a "global village" (which was always a bit naive, but at least we seemed to have started to build one in the West) ?