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

371–380 of 506 posts

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

#371

Post by xmprt »

tomtheelder wrote: post #211
trident5000 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite is the NY LLC publishing requirement. To start a business you must publish that you started a business for 6 consecutive weeks which costs thousands. Wonder what back door corrupt deal was made on that one.

That one is just an archaic rule, but I registered an LLC in NY for like $200 all in. Services will publish for you in random publications for that cost. Still annoying, but not a huge deal realistically.

What does the law achieve? It seems like such a massive waste of money. Why does it need to be a physical publication when a digital publication is cheaper and can have just as much if not more reach?

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

#372

Post by inshadows »

Hokusai wrote: post #215
ricardo81 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords. Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other…

> due to the technical limitations of how they store information. Has nothing to do with technical limitations and everything with engagement metrics. Facebook does not want to show you what you want to see, they want to show you what will hook you and keep you in the platform. If anything, it takes more resources to show their view than just a time posted order.

> Facebook does not want to show you what you want to see, they want to show you what will hook you and keep you in the platform.

Sounds like drug dealers. I'm not hooked to their platform because they don't show me what I want to see. But what you said imply that there is some addictive content that people would normally avoid, but Facebook helps them get addicted. Truly evil. I'm not active Facebook user so I don't know how it goes there.

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

#373

Post by HenryBemis »

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.

This should also a taster for people living in the UK (including me) on what will happen to our rights under a sovereign state after an apocalyptic Brexit. Not politicising this conversation, just seing what is to come outside of the EU and with the struggle that is coming head on.

First they gave our FB data to the americans, next they went for our NHS! :)

ps1: I don't use FB ps2: I got nothing against the americans (apart from their eating habits and love for guns) ps3: there is a post-Brexit feast coming, and it won't be the People enjoying the main course(s).

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

#374

Post by Dahoon »

smt88 wrote: post #351
furyg3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Companies cannot feel emotions.

Mark Zuckerberg has complete control of Facebook, and he feels emotions. Elon Musk's emotions certainly dictate a lot of his companies' behavior. Companies aren't emotionless if they are essentially an extension of an individual.

I disagree that Zuckerberg feels emotions.

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

#375

Post by AlchemistCamp »

ricardo81 wrote: post #337
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I do currently earn money from my programming tutorials, let me tell you about my blog in the late aughts. I wrote hundreds of pieces about language learning, teaching and elementary school-aged education. One benefit from that work was that it helped me grow as a teacher and later as a curriculum designer. But that wasn't the whole thing. I made friends from that blog. I also got emails from teachers living al…

It sounds like you made something beneficial for the web in which your peers agreed. How about in 2020, would you agree that the amount of visibility your site gets is dependent on FB and G algos? Even if the content is evergreen? Of course that disregards other sites making new things but I'd say your value is not diminished either way.

Social media was a major source of blog traffic 10-15 years ago and now it's negligible (see Rand Fishkin's talks for more on this).

Google has also been keeping more and more traffic within its ecosystem, but it's still by far the largest remaining source for most independent sites.

The landscape for independents to get even traffic, let alone comments is very, very different than it was. As fb and reddit grew, my site comments reduced by over 80% while traffic was flat. Readers who had been around for years continued but newer visitors stopped.

For a while social media shares made up the difference, but over time social media traffic dropped to less than 5% of its original level. I started seeing less and less value in what I'd once thought was evergreen content.

Then, I changed careers to software. It wasn't because of the drop in RSS readers, blog commenters, etc, but those changes did decrease my enthusiasm about blogging as a social activity.

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

#376

Post by inshadows »

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…

What's the solution? You squeeze FB/Google and you'll get several another ones that will start with lofty slogans ("Don't be evil. Really this time!") and by the time end up being same silos. I think these platforms are inevitable.

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

jcims wrote: post #353
spoonjim wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People will read it if you link to it contextually. I made a throwaway video demonstrating the 125mhz Ethernet carrier for that etherify HN post a month or so ago. I posted the link in a mid-level comment. 200 people watched the video. Today we view that number as approximately zero. But that's past Dunbar's number. That's more people than I will have any kind of meaningful relationship with simultaneously. Most peop…

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by prewett »

trident5000 wrote: post #110
lmilcin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It even is sometimes weaponized to help fight competition. For example, by making it expensive to conduct a certain type of business and requiring even higher entry costs (things like certification, licences, etc.) it actually favors large, established businesses. Case in point: Uber suggesting minimum wage for their workers, some time ago. Think about this, the company refuses to recognize them as their work force b…

My favorite is the NY LLC publishing requirement. To start a business you must publish that you started a business for 6 consecutive weeks which costs thousands. Wonder what back door corrupt deal was made on that one.

Based on my reading of O'Henry stories, my guess is that law exists because people were selling stock in scam mining companies with mines in the West back in the late 1800s / early 1900s. If you had to advertise that you were starting a business, then people could look up your company and discover that it is unlikely that your company had $$$ of gold deposits in Colorado.

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

#379

Post by Dahoon »

avianlyric wrote: post #198
dvcrn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about citizenship but where you live. In place A the rules of place A apply. If place A is part of the EU, EU laws apply.

Incorrect. With GDPR the EU extended their power to protect all EU citizens regardless of residency in, or out, of the EU. Of course the EU will have trouble enforcing that protection against companies that don't operate in the EU. But the protection remains, even if it's practically unenforceable.

Incorrect. It protects PII in the EU. It has nothing to do with EU citizenship. It doesn't try to enforce outside the EU either. If you want to move PII out of the EU you have to agree by the rules given. That's not the EU trying to enforce anything outside of the EU but you making an agreement to move data outside the EU on certain terms. It is not the same thing as trying to force EU law on non-EU.

I don't know why people keep repeating this myth. Laws like these are old as dirt. It could as well have been about blood samples from Denmark used in research in the US: the samples are protected by Danish law and to use them in the US you have to agree to certain rules. Again an example of you saying you will follow certain rules to be allowed to transport and use the samples outside Denmark, not Denmark forcing their laws on anything in another country. You are free to not sign anything and not use or move the blood samples or PII anywhere.

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

#380

Post by rapind »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #352
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…

Why post it at all if you don't care?

Why not? I put all sorts of notes, random thoughts, and guides to the web. It’s nice if someone else benefits from it, but the goal is really to keep notes for myself or that I can directly share with someone else. It’s great to have it easily accessible from any device with a web browser from anywhere.

Kind of what blogging was about (and still can be).

Post reply on HN