Facebook: We don’t need your consent • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#81

Post by JohnFen » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

wcarron wrote: post #60

alkonaut wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mind ads. I mind tracking. Basically my demand is that Facebook show me dumb enough ads and use only data I consent to. Im ok with my age and gender and other things being used to target an ad - that’s information I already willingly gave them. But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram t…

> But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram they crossed a line regardless of what terms and conditions I accepted. Uh, no, they haven't. YOU are responsible for visiting websites and using their services under terms and conditions you agreed to. YOU are responsible for and capable of not using…

This argument would carry more weight if the terms of service and privacy policies were both complete and written in a way that ordinary non-lawyer people could actually understand.

However, 90+% of the time, they're not.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#82

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #69

buboard wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't be insulting > European Regulations are law. Regulations have to be implemented and integrated into each country's laws. Countries may not have yet implemented GDPR > their primary usage is advertising I don't see where FB claimed that advertising is primary usage and others are secondary. i can infer from the text that they parceled as part of the "service promise" > FB does not give all the data, the definiti…

>Regulations have to be implemented and integrated into each country's laws. Countries may not have yet implemented GDPR This is 100% wrong. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/types-eu-la...

Right, that's correct, even though supplemental legislation is passed in each country following the regulation, including GDPR. IIRC there are 2 EU members that haven't done it yet.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#83

Post by cmcd » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

riversflow wrote: post #67

cmcd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to ads is subscription services, which already exist. If people prefered subscription social media to ad based they would flock to those, but they don't.

“The alternative to indentured servitude is free labor, which already exists. If people preferred free labor to indentured service, no one would sign a service contract, but they do.” -paraphrasing someone 300 years ago, probably. Sometimes people pick things that are bad; that people choose something doesn’t make it somehow good.

Pretty extreme to compare FaceBook to indentured servitude, everyone is free to leave FaceBook at any time and we know up front what their model is.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#84

Post by ivanbakel » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #13

ivanbakel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads. GDPR should be used for exactly this purpose - it is a protection against companies collecting and using personal data in this way. Facebook has the choice to show ads, just not personalised ones. What is specifically being argued about is that Facebook tried to claim ads were a contractua…

And if FB is not feasible without personalized ads, no user should be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

That would be called consent, which is exactly what FB is not collecting.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#85

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #75

buboard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't really mean a censorship firewall, rather an attempt to shoo US companies from the EU market the same way that China is protecting its own companies.

So EU companies are allowed to ignore GDPR, as it's just used to shoo away US companies?

no they re not, which is why this kind of "firewalling" is stupid

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#86

Post by smacktoward » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

WilliamEdward wrote: post #72

hellofunk wrote: post #2

Time and time we are proven again and again that Facebook has become the emblem of how far technology can go to support pure malicious intention with widespread support.

Tech companies in general have beaten low standards and mediocrity into people's heads. Not only are they okay with using these products, they now try to recreate the same low bar set by the greater industry. Facebook should be destroyed.

Facebook delenda est?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#87

Post by A_No_Name_Mouse » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

ckastner wrote: post #18

Under article 7 GDPR [1], consent has to be given freely . Unless Facebook offered an option to opt-out of this contract, use of the Facebook service was tied to the agreement, which means it probably won't hold up. It's great that this is happening in front of an Austrian court, because the Austrian Data Protection Agency already has ruled on consent issues, and in those rulings was (IMO) extremely strict on when co…

The trick is that the legal ground is not based on consent but on performance of a contract, in which case consent, freely given or not, is not required at all.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#88

Post by Hamuko » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #85

Hamuko wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So EU companies are allowed to ignore GDPR, as it's just used to shoo away US companies?

no they re not, which is why this kind of "firewalling" is stupid

What kind of a fucking firewall is it now? It's not for censorship, it's not for preferential treatment. You keep calling a firewall but can't say what it actually does.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#89

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #74

rock_hard wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? It’s a key part of the offering! You get free access and get to see ads in exchange. Others have tried other business models and failed...that’s how the world works, the better offering wins! If the problem people have is ads then just make all ads illegal and we can move on. But trying to use GDPR as a lever i…

> I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about the fact that ads is what pays for Facebook to exist? I think most people understand that ads pay for Facebook. But so what? I don't see how it changes anything.

the claim is that they users didn't want to see ads even though they agreed to use the site, so they couldn't have known that ads are required for the site to exist

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#90

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #47

hugi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an EU citizen I believe it's time we shut Facebook off. They've shown no willingness to abide by our law, so I don't see why a criminal company should be allowed to continue to operate here.

we could switch to VK. try it, it's fast, and has a ton of pirated movies.

Yeah, and a comrade major from the FSB has easy and unlimited access to all your conversations and data

A vast majority of political prosecutions for online extremism in Russia were carried out using info that VK subserviently provided to police and special services.