Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement

Post by seydor » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #43

"Users therefore need to be provided with a yes/no ("opt-in") consent option, otherwise Meta may not use their data for personalized advertisement." I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.

Post by Nextgrid » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #44

jdiez17 wrote: post #26

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…

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #32

pxeger1 wrote: post #3

The title is a bit misleading. > Meta is now prohibited to bypass the GDPR via a clause in the terms and conditions. Meta has to get "opt-in" consent for personalized advertisement and must provide users with a "yes/no" option

It's one thing to provide on opt-in for new users, but will this mean retroactively resetting ALL users to no?

Post by burkaman » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39

burkaman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal, they just need to ask their users if it's ok. If there's nothing wrong with this practice, why would the users say no?

> why would the users say no? One can agree with the measure and disagree with its deployment. Here, a quasi-judicial body with opaquely-appointed members created a rule ex post facto . It’s a good opinion. But that sort of unpredictability obviously has a cost. (Agencies in America face similar criticism.)

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, Jan 04, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #40

whimsicalism wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Mandating companies to serve users who provide no value at all is an example of the regulatory requirements that spill down to hurting regular consumers and workers in Europe. You can see this across all sorts of fields, youth unemployment in Europe (for example) is a mess.

> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. That is more or less correct, although some newspapers in Europe are taking the gamble on that and there might be grounds for a middle-ground decision and amendment of the GDPR down the line. > who provide no value at all Disagreed, those users still provide value - not only…