381–390 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to gdpr they must still offer the same service regardless of the user opt-in. Remains to be seen if FB can follow the GDPR there. Also not sure whether that point of GDPR is compatible with other kinds of trade agreements. Probably they will go for "Please choose between 50 horrible autoplaying spammy ads or 4 personalized"
But wouldn't different ads be a different service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
> To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation Is it right that a tiny but loud minority be able to ban these ad-supported services for all of society? Going by revealed preferences, most people don't consider targeting advertising to be "spying and psychological manipulation". If they did, usage patte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just search for hats? Or voluntarily opt into getting tracked?
> You can just search for hats I am not a hat wearer but now I might become one because I saw some cool hats I like. This was by accident because I wasn't in the market for hats. I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech which is why I make all my Facebook posts public. I don't ever want to kid myself that what I am staying stays private to only my friends and family. I have not encountered a downside to…
It doesn’t because tech companies like META and it won’t be fixed so long as your narrative remains the norm. We can fix this but not by letting these companies get away with it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
could result NOT must result
If the EU maxes out on the fines and companies like Meta still don’t comply, I’m sure that legislation will be adjusted to further increase the pressure. It’ll just take time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can just search for hats I am not a hat wearer but now I might become one because I saw some cool hats I like. This was by accident because I wasn't in the market for hats. I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech which is why I make all my Facebook posts public. I don't ever want to kid myself that what I am staying stays private to only my friends and family. I have not encountered a downside to…
>I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech It doesn’t because tech companies like META and it won’t be fixed so long as your narrative remains the norm. We can fix this but not by letting these companies get away with it
[flagged]
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people will be given a choice (assuming Meta doesn’t throw a tantrum and decide to leave the EU in Brexit fashion - which they are more than welcome to do!). “Do you want us to use [extensive list of all of the kinds of information we have meticulously gathered about you] to show you more relevant ads? Yes/no” I have a personal belief on what most people will answer to that question. You may disagree. But it do…
You don’t have to guess. We know. How many people use Gmail vs paying for a provider not owned by an advertiser company? How many people use Hulu free/lite tier vs paying more for zero ads? How many people are flocking to use a paid privacy focused search engine like Neeva? Hell even DDG hasn’t taken over and it’s free! People have choices and their preferences are clear: “give me free shit!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision, as I understand it, renders large swathes of tech service revenue models untenable. To be honest, good riddance. If it is no longer possible to offer users a "free" service in exchange for extremely invasive spying and psychological manipulation (without explicit consent [0]), it forces companies to 1) innovate in order to offer such services for a sustainable price, and 2) encourages competition fro…
If the standard becomes "make illegal business models that the media gets enough people upset about" (without even a vote where the alternatives [paying for service] are clearly explained), then -yeah- people are going to be left poorer. Europe already endured centuries of this when the majority Christian ethos was that usury & banking were an evil to be banned. This, among other things of course, helped sentence mil…
And if your implied suggestion was that the business model of company X (and whatever benefit they may provide through this model) is a more important vote than the basic value of privacy, or that the issue of cost was not brought to the table enough times for people to understand the trade-offs, then I guess my understanding of how democracy works is different than yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? The issue isn't what we personally like or prefer for ourselves -- it's more about when we think it's legitimate to take away the right of businesses to experiment with business models, and of consumers to be free to enter into the tradeoffs they prefer. Why shouldn't a consumer be…
> But why do you think legislation should be the one forcing that choice on everyone, rather than the market allowing consumers to choose? Meta is still allowed to do this, so consumers still get a choice. Meta is just now forced to ask consumers for their explicit consent.
Now, if Meta can’t make a viable business model without denying users the choice, doesn’t that mean that their model is flawed? The thing is, for users to understand what they are choosing, they need to understand their right to privacy and why it matters. It took the EU at least a decade (possibly more) to reach the point where they are starting to apply this legislation.