5 ms·

Having read the GDPR requirements, I don’t think that Facebook, or any other social network, can fully comply and still be a social network. Many features will

Having read the GDPR requirements, I don’t think that Facebook, or any other social network, can fully comply and still be a social network. Many features will be impossible to offer to people that are subject to these requirements, such that the GDPR version of Facebook wouldn’t really even be the same service anymore. If I were starting a social network today, I’d simply block EU IPs from accessing it.

seanwilson 9y ago
> Many features will be impossible offer to people that are subject to these requirements Features like what? They couldn't even be offered if the user was to opt-in?
- olympus 9y ago
  Features like being required to delete (actually delete) your information if you request it. Features like being required to show you what they know about you. Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads.
  - solotronics 9y ago
    "This kills the panopticon" -Picture of scissors cutting Facebook
  - seanwilson 9y ago
    > Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads. When people are willingly tagging the location of where they're having lunch and posting pictures of what they're eating, I can't say I agree. Preventing companies from tracking information users aren't aware of is a good thing though.
  - rmc 9y ago
    "Required to show what they know" has been part of EU data protection law for decades. Max Schrems first made news by doing a data request to Facebook (which they complied with) in 2011. This is nothing new.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  I'm also curious as to the answer, but more generally I don't think it's beneficial to allow users to waive the privacy protections. Then you basically get the situation we have today: services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often, and we agree to them because we want to use the product and can't realistically keep up with the terms for everything.
  - seanwilson 9y ago
    > Then you basically get the situation we have today: services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often GDPR is meant to prevent this though? What you're agreeing to has to be understandable and the data you're collecting has to be directly related to the service you're providing?
  - rmc 9y ago
    > services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often, and we agree to them because we want to use the product and can't realistically keep up with the terms for everything. GDPR addresses some of that. You need informed consent, which means it has describe in plain language what happens, if you want to change it, you need explicit opt in again. There's debate about how far you can deny service if someone withholds (or withdraws) consent.
- downandout 9y ago
  The problem is that the law raises more questions than it answers. But arguably, features like being having a profile in the first place could be affected. The law demands that only the minimal amount of personal information required for a specific purpose be collected, and then that it must be deleted as soon as that purpose has been completed. They cannot request more information than perhaps the person’s name and email address, lest they run afoul of this law. So if someone posts something in their timeline, how long is it allowed to stay? Until all friends have seen it, or longer? Was it a violation of the law to even have a space for the user to enter the information into the timeline, since it wasn’t “necessary”? So the EU has created a law that Facebook and many other online services will arguably at all times be in violation of. This will create an environment where the EU can use the threat of enforcing the law to effectively impose its will on these massive businesses that cannot comply and still run their business. This was sold to the public as a privacy law, but it’s really just a huge power play.
  - cesarb 9y ago
    > The law demands that only the minimal amount of personal information required for a specific purpose be collected, and then that it must be deleted as soon as that purpose has been completed. [...] So if someone posts something in their timeline, how long is it allowed to stay? Until all friends have seen it, or longer? In that example, wouldn't the specific purpose be "to display it on the user's timeline" (or on the user's profile)? So it would be allowed to stay as long as the timeline (or the user's profile) is visible (and the user didn't mark that piece of information as hidden).
    - downandout 9y ago
      But collecting the wall post in the first place, which was not necessary for any party, may in fact be illegal under this law. It says specifically that companies are to collect "the minimum amount of information necessary". If I put a box in front of you and encourage you to input highly personal data, such as what you had for lunch, who you voted for, what you're doing at work today, or how you're feeling today...am I not actively violating this law? There's at least an argument to be made that I am.
- rmc 9y ago
  Not charging user and getting all your money from adverts.
rmc 9y ago
> If I were starting a social network today, I’d simply block EU IPs from accessing it. You're be free to do that. And then you'd have to cut off a large revenue stream (~25% of FB's revenue comes from the EU). And if you get popular, some EU start up can just copy your site. They already know what works, what features to build, so it'll be quicker for them to copy than it took you to build. This competitor will be able to operate in the USA and EU, but you won't be able to take them on in the EU. They'll have a safe, protected user base of ~500 million potential users to rely on.

seanwilson 9y ago

> Many features will be impossible offer to people that are subject to these requirements Features like what? They couldn't even be offered if the user was to opt-in?

olympus 9y ago
Features like being required to delete (actually delete) your information if you request it. Features like being required to show you what they know about you. Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads.
- solotronics 9y ago
  "This kills the panopticon" -Picture of scissors cutting Facebook
- seanwilson 9y ago
  > Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads. When people are willingly tagging the location of where they're having lunch and posting pictures of what they're eating, I can't say I agree. Preventing companies from tracking information users aren't aware of is a good thing though.
- rmc 9y ago
  "Required to show what they know" has been part of EU data protection law for decades. Max Schrems first made news by doing a data request to Facebook (which they complied with) in 2011. This is nothing new.
jakelazaroff 9y ago
I'm also curious as to the answer, but more generally I don't think it's beneficial to allow users to waive the privacy protections. Then you basically get the situation we have today: services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often, and we agree to them because we want to use the product and can't realistically keep up with the terms for everything.
- seanwilson 9y ago
  > Then you basically get the situation we have today: services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often GDPR is meant to prevent this though? What you're agreeing to has to be understandable and the data you're collecting has to be directly related to the service you're providing?
- rmc 9y ago
  > services can hide objectionable terms behind a wall of legalese that changes often, and we agree to them because we want to use the product and can't realistically keep up with the terms for everything. GDPR addresses some of that. You need informed consent, which means it has describe in plain language what happens, if you want to change it, you need explicit opt in again. There's debate about how far you can deny service if someone withholds (or withdraws) consent.
downandout 9y ago
The problem is that the law raises more questions than it answers. But arguably, features like being having a profile in the first place could be affected. The law demands that only the minimal amount of personal information required for a specific purpose be collected, and then that it must be deleted as soon as that purpose has been completed. They cannot request more information than perhaps the person’s name and email address, lest they run afoul of this law. So if someone posts something in their timeline, how long is it allowed to stay? Until all friends have seen it, or longer? Was it a violation of the law to even have a space for the user to enter the information into the timeline, since it wasn’t “necessary”? So the EU has created a law that Facebook and many other online services will arguably at all times be in violation of. This will create an environment where the EU can use the threat of enforcing the law to effectively impose its will on these massive businesses that cannot comply and still run their business. This was sold to the public as a privacy law, but it’s really just a huge power play.
- cesarb 9y ago
  > The law demands that only the minimal amount of personal information required for a specific purpose be collected, and then that it must be deleted as soon as that purpose has been completed. [...] So if someone posts something in their timeline, how long is it allowed to stay? Until all friends have seen it, or longer? In that example, wouldn't the specific purpose be "to display it on the user's timeline" (or on the user's profile)? So it would be allowed to stay as long as the timeline (or the user's profile) is visible (and the user didn't mark that piece of information as hidden).
  - downandout 9y ago
    But collecting the wall post in the first place, which was not necessary for any party, may in fact be illegal under this law. It says specifically that companies are to collect "the minimum amount of information necessary". If I put a box in front of you and encourage you to input highly personal data, such as what you had for lunch, who you voted for, what you're doing at work today, or how you're feeling today...am I not actively violating this law? There's at least an argument to be made that I am.
rmc 9y ago
Not charging user and getting all your money from adverts.

rmc 9y ago

> If I were starting a social network today, I’d simply block EU IPs from accessing it. You're be free to do that. And then you'd have to cut off a large revenue stream (~25% of FB's revenue comes from the EU). And if you get popular, some EU start up can just copy your site. They already know what works, what features to build, so it'll be quicker for them to copy than it took you to build. This competitor will be able to operate in the USA and EU, but you won't be able to take them on in the EU. They'll have a safe, protected user base of ~500 million potential users to rely on.