Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

Post by astrange » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #288

astrange wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case “whatever they can to turn a buck” = “showing you ads targeted to 20 year old males because you said in your profile that you’re a 20 year old male”.

what profile? i don't use said platform, but they still hoard data about me anyways. so fuck 'em if they get barred from doing shady shit. and yes, i feel that all of the cursing is mandatory because being nice has gotten us fuck all for protections from these leeches.

Post by charcircuit » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

rolenthedeep wrote: post #265

charcircuit wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's pretty clear that "the market" isn't solving this problem. Have you considered that it isn't being solved because consumers don't actually mind the extra tracking? All the tracking does is attempt to give them better ads. Better ads provide a better user experience. Personalized ads are a win win for both the company and the user.

If people don't care, then why is legislation being passed? There is little monetary benefit to a government to unilaterally enact this kind of legislation without public support or legitimate concern for public safety. Privacy and data mining by corporations is a huge topic of discussion these days. Because the conversation doesn't enter your bubble, it doesn't mean it's not happening. You should look around more, f…

Post by Nextgrid » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #306

red_admiral wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're contributing to the discussion, but I strongly disagree with you. In this case, according to the linked article, it seems to me like meta tried to rules-lawyer their way around the GDPR, and got told no, the words "contract" and "consent" mean exactly what they usually do. If you're testing the boundaries of a law for your own benefit, sometimes you get told you've overstepped it, that's life - not an…

"5 EUR/month but we'll give it for free if you agree to personalised ads" Is this an edge case? My understanding is that it's legal under GDPR.

Post by akiselev » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 6:33 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #204

mpweiher wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an analysis, that's a polemic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute Even if they got the numbers right, which I doubt, they completely miss that US income has to pay for a lot more than in most of Europe, healthcare and education just as the most prominent examples, also lack of public transit etc. And of course anyone who has ever lived both in the US and in one or more European countries knows t…

if you read the article, you would see that they account for social service transfers. > And of course anyone who has ever lived both in the US and in one or more European countries knows that this "analysis" is BS. mm. if we are going by anecdata, my dad grew up in Europe in latter 20th century and they could not afford shoes or electricity. his siblings were put up for adoption. things have certainly changed, but t…

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 6:34 PM UTC

astrange wrote: post #309

Dylan16807 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unintended results are part of writing the laws. It's hard to forsee companies wanting to annoy users on purpose. > So is writing a law that phone ports must be USBC and forgetting about wireless charging standards. What's the problem here? Wireless charging is already using a single standard.

Out here Starbucks still has a bunch of tables with some kind of wireless charging ring that isn’t Qi. But more importantly, “phones must have a USBC port if they have a port” doesn’t implement “phones must charge from a USBC charger” and so users could go out and buy portless phones and discover they still have to carry around a charger, the problem you were supposedly solving.