Facebook: We don’t need your consent
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#2Time 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.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#3I 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 is silly...it’s not what its intended to do, as much as some people would like it to
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#4Honestly, if this "loophole" is allowed to exist then the GDPR is not worth the paper it is written on.
The idea that consent should be freely given is ludicrous if it can be overridden by simply including it in a term in the terms and conditions. Facebook could probably write that they can kill or castrate the user at any time and most of their users wouldn't notice it (until the media picked it up).
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#5Hasn’t there already been rulings against those kind of clauses being shoehorned in terms and conditions?
I can’t make you sell your soul for subscribing to a service.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#6I 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…
It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#7I 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…
It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.
Just replace "ads" with "personalized ads" in the parent
FB is free because they can pay for it with personalized ads. I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#8I 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…
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 contractual service (thus exempting them from rules on personal data) - but transparently they aren't.
And if Facebook can't survive in a future where it is forced to respect personal privacy, then may its death be ever sooner.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#9I 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…
IMO, ads should be made illegal, but that's not the point here. Facebook is perfectly free to show ads to people, they are just not free to track people. They are trying to use ads as a justification for tracking here, which is the contested point.
And before you answer that ads without tracking don't pay the bills, that's honestly Facebook's problem.
Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent
#10I 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…
The issue is not advertising, but "to aggregate user interests and track people on the internet".
While advertising is not illegal under the GDPR, collecting an individual's data for marketing or advertising purposes without a "basis" (as defined in the GDPR) is.
The plaintiff is arguing about data privacy, whereas Facebook's lawyer is playing the advertising card as a counter. The plaintiff is unhappy about the way Facebook uses personal data, while Facebook is arguing they have a legal basis for processing data for personalised advertising purposes in order to fulfil a contract which it entered into the users. (which is a basis in the GDPR).