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

Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 506 posts

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#361

Post by _oJo_27_ »

taurath wrote: post #161
dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?

It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissoluti…

My niece at age 17 suffers from depression and anxiety. Looking at how those kids socially depend on their phones and myself being old enough to understand that the big companies actively (not coincidentally as in the very early days) making people addictive makes me very angry.

Human beings can't develop essential emotional skill hanging around at FB, Netflix, TikTok, Insta ... what ever. Kids are becoming emotionally crippled for their whole lives. The big companies know what they're doing with us, but they don't care.

It's billions of dollars of science and research of how to get customers and make them addictive vs. individual fate.

I know that this needs to stop but unfortunately don't know how.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#362

Post by rsync »

wolco2 wrote: post #301
rsync wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free exchange among peoples is alive and well. It is easier today to make a website and share anything than it has ever been in the history of civilization." This has always been my own reaction to pronouncements that the Internet as we knew it is dead, or over. I'm usually quite optimistic about our ability to freely (and usually without monetary cost) create and share, globally. However, the closure of Nekochan (a…

For all of the reasons free exchange may be happening less so now GDPR is the least of worrying issue facing website owners.

"For all of the reasons free exchange may be happening less so now GDPR is the least of worrying issue facing website owners."

To be clear, I thought his concerns about GDPR were unfounded.

The point is, the environment is much more complex than it used to be and I see examples of that complexity stifling sharing and expression.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#363

Post by sveme »

harry8 wrote: post #319
avianlyric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulatory capture is utterly rampant right now and a huge threat to democracy. Rampant in the US. The EU has managed to avoid the worst of it so far.

Please look a little harder.

Care to explain?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#364

Post by masswerk »

laumars wrote: post #210
yarg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). Naturally there's a cost to all things: developers need to eat; they need a work/life balance. Unless there's financial backing for a concept or project it will have a hard time getting off the ground. And unless there's some corporate interest in what's being worked on it simply won't be written. The best hope is open-source outreach not as benevolence, but…

> The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). That may be true, but few people ask the follow up question “why do people expect things to be free?” The answer is usually because companies like Google had pulled a bait-and-switch of sorts where they offered a service for free long before they made a commercial business of people’s profiles. They set this expectation of free themselves. And you can’t rea…

E.g., running a small e-mail service was a popular side business that provided a predictable amount of extra for many developers around the globe. And customers were generally fine with a small charge per month – that is, until GMail effectively put an end to this.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#365

Post by uniqueid »

ironmagma wrote: post #134
stickfigure wrote: post #11

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

It’s more like de-globalization, which could very well be a good thing given the multitudes of problems that have arisen out of globalization.

On the plus side: 75 years without a world war, so that's nice.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#366

Post by ptr2voidStar »

spoonjim wrote: post #333
ryandrake wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Here's something I've always wondered: I don't really get this obsession with maximizing the number of people who go to one's web page. If you're just a regular person who's not profiting from ads or something, it shouldn't matter. If I post something to the internet, I maybe send it to a few people who might want to see it and that's it. I don't care about collecting pagev…

Almost anyone who publishes something wants people to read it. The ones who don’t care how many people read their ideas don’t publish — they keep it to themselves or just discuss it with friends.

It is astonishing that you have to state this manifestly evident fact.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#368

Post by cle »

Sargos wrote: post #127
cle wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on what those protocols are, how they help, what their weaknesses are, and what work remains? I'm really curious to learn more about this area. (Even just a link summarizing this would be awesome.)

I love talking about this stuff but it does have a lot of technical jargon and dependent knowledge that is very difficult to convey simply. I'll try my best. Also this stuff is still being designed and built so some of it is not even concrete yet. Getting really into this would be a big article too so I'll try to be brief but not too much. The basic premise is that protocols are more powerful than centralized entitie…

This was actually very helpful, lots of good leads to follow up on. I appreciate the time you took to write this up.

If you have the time, would you mind reaching out to me at hncle@protonmail.com?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#369

Post by wait_a_minute »

ironmagma wrote: post #258
pilsetnieks wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in a country where a global total war and several occupations of the most evil totalitarian regimes in history is still within living memory, and having been under an isolationist totalitarian power, comments like these make me shudder. Globalization has some problems. The benefits so far have massively outweighed them, especially if you take the long view. How about we try to fix those faults, instead of retr…

Centralization of supply chains, economic monoculture, increased spread of disease, increased carbon emissions, massively increased pollution. That’s a lot of risks which are mostly unquantifiable; it’s dubious to claim we know which is worse, especially in the long run. We lived without globalism for many thousands of years, it’s incredibly new and unproven.

We had a much less global world in the early 1900s. Didn’t stop the Spanish flu and multiple world wars from happening.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#370

Post by petre »

d3nj4l wrote: post #275
avianlyric wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Snowden? Change in government? Does it really matter? Point is I help elect the UK government, that means I can change it. Does not apply to the US government, so the US government could put full page ads in the Daily Mail talking about how the abuse the data of UK citizens, and there's diddly squat I could do about it.

Funny thing about Snowden's leaks is that the only meaningful outcome I can see of it is his exile. PRISM itself is still alive and well.

Laws forcing companies to keep specific data in certain jurisdictions is another one, as this article is concerned with. The Brits just shot themselves in the foot. I though EU directives had to be ratified and remain in effect, but apparently other UK laws make it possible for Facebook to abuse their position unhampered.
Post reply on HN