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

NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

bitsoffreedom.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 247 posts

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#61

Post by Aurornis »

inetknght wrote: post #51
Aurornis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. The messaging features were built on top of the platform. Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement. If…

> Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. Well, I suppose that's one take on it. I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works. You could call it a rugpull, I would call it US business practices.

> I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger.

Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. It came long after Facebook was popular.

I should have known better than to step into a conversation about Facebook on HN. Doing anything other than blindly agreeing with anti-Facebook comments, even if they’re factually incorrect or illogical, attracts downvotes and more illogical arguments.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#62

Post by gman83 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #11
jacooper wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol 5 million is pocket change for meta, wtf are these courts doing?

This is 5 million for this particular court case. Nothing is preventing others from filing their own, very similar cases. If Meta ignores the court's decision, a second lawsuit may end much worse for them. Though, practically speaking, America has been threatening to make the trade war they started much worse for the EU if it tried to enforce things like DSA and GDPR fines. We'll have to see how enforceable these law…

The US wouldn't be doing this if these American tech companies weren't lobbying the government hard to kill the DSA & GDPR. It seems like all regulatory enforcement is out of the window with this administration, so if they can kill the European regulations, they're free to do as they like. The scoping of the trade war as the US having a deficit with all countries by not counting services is ridiculous, it's the most important sector of the economy, and the US has a massive surplus in services.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#64

Post by hnuser123456 »

quotemstr wrote: post #49

This is over the "most recent" mode? Absolutely moronic decision. It punishes companies for giving users any choice at all.

Yes, the issue is forced algorithm-based feeds, where Meta is free to profile as deeply as they want and exploit what should be private knowledge about you. A "most recent" feed (of things you already chose to subscribe to/follow) should be a standard option on any social media app, and the app shouldn't switch back to their toxic algorithm automatically anytime you look away. This behavior itself shows how much Meta wants to control what you see and is extra impetus to require a simple chronological feed option that is selectable as default, and that the user's choice is respected.

IIRC, around 2008-2009, "most recent" was the only kind of feed, and within the span of a couple years, they added their "personalized" feed but would let you switch between the two freely (and the setting would persist), and not much later, the setting would no longer persist.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#65

Post by snoman »

rosseitsa wrote: post #21
eru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you just stop using Facebook, if you don't like it?

There is a level of investment we put in the platforms we use. This comment is akin to asking farmers cut off from repairing their equipment "why don't you buy tractors from a different company instead of fighting to fix your existing ones?" The investment in the case of social media is the network you've built. In my country most local events are announced primarily on facebook for example.

Unless you depend on Facebook for your livelihood, then this is a false equivalence.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#67

Post by sigzero »

rosseitsa wrote: post #21
eru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you just stop using Facebook, if you don't like it?

There is a level of investment we put in the platforms we use. This comment is akin to asking farmers cut off from repairing their equipment "why don't you buy tractors from a different company instead of fighting to fix your existing ones?" The investment in the case of social media is the network you've built. In my country most local events are announced primarily on facebook for example.

That isn't a good comparison at all. "Don't use it" is a valid choice. I use it. None of my kids do. It's also "free" for you to use. So maybe stop trying to force them to do things while providing you a "free" service.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#68

Post by Workaccount2 »

They need to just ban the ad model and make subscriptions (including free with no ads, if the provider wants it) mandatory.

I don't think people understand how the economics of these apps (and websites) work, and it's been so long now that their incorrect assumptions (the feeds are free and the greedy providers shove ads in them) have turned into bedrock beliefs.

You pay for instagram with your personal data, which is used to target you with high value ads. Which covers the cost of your continued usage. If you don't like it, don't use instagram. If you really don't like it, lobby for the law to make it illegal, but get your credit card ready for another monthly subscription.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#69

Post by em-bee »

Aurornis wrote: post #42
55555 wrote: post #20

Please for the love of god make it a legal requirement that messaging must be made available as a separate app without addictive feeds. Or make it such that users can disable the feed in settings. We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform.

> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform. Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. The messaging features were built on top of the platform. Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement. If…

Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement

the better alternative is to require interoperability with other messenger apps, so can use the app of my choice. this is a proposal under discussion since years ago.

I seriously doubt that your friends are only able to communicate through exactly one communication channel

some people do exactly that. they refuse to communicate on anything but their messenger of choice. and sometimes keeping in touch with that person is more important than my preferences. oh, and for many people i do not want to share my phone number, which limits the available messaging platforms we can still use. we'll be lucky if there is one.

Re: NL Judge: Meta must respect user's choice of recommendation system

#70

Post by jlouis »

eru wrote: post #15
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #12

As a European, I’m glad that the influence of big, potentially dangerous companies is being kept in check. From the start of October, Meta is completely switching off political ads and now I can look forward to my feed stopping with tabloids, politics and Russian propaganda and going back to technical curiosities and capybaras.

Why don't you just stop using Facebook, if you don't like it?

Facebook is one major bait and switch strategy.

In the first step, you get everyone to invest into your platform. You provide some valuable services to people, and they sign an implicit contract as a result.

In the second step, you reap what you sow. You switch the platform entirely and change its core nature and functionality. It's hard to stop using Facebook when everyone else is using Facebook, and this fact means you can do things which would normally have people leave your platform in droves.

This ruling limits the extent to which you can run such a bait and switch campaign. It's somewhat remarkable, because it extends some basic consumer rights to tech companies, even if there's no direct product nor a subscription in place. Personally, I think it's long overdue.

Post reply on HN