5 ms·

Best endorsement of GDPR they could possibly make. Everyone knows Facebook collects more data than most people probably want so it follows that a privacy law t

Best endorsement of GDPR they could possibly make. Everyone knows Facebook collects more data than most people probably want so it follows that a privacy law they don't want to roll out everywhere must help curtail that to some degree.

dclowd9901 9y ago
Yeah, and to a degree that theyre willing to eat the cost of maintaining a much more complicated privacy structure (and, inherently, code base) to not roll it out everywhere.
- slivym 9y ago
  I don't think that maintaining different strategies in different areas is the more costly procedure. The assumption you're making here is that GDPR is one and done. In all likelihood, most major jurisdictions are going to introduce privacy laws at some point. If you don't build your international service to allow for different rules in different jurisdictions you're going to have to follow the strictest of those laws. Heck, I'd put money on some countries forcing some web services to record some data for law enforcement purposes and other countries barring facebook from recording the same data for privacy reasons. So really, you have to build this system in a way that can be tailored to each market you operate in.
dominotw 9y ago
Wouldn't you get the same answer if you ask CEO of any company though?
- Redklao 9y ago
  No reason to think so. Apple, for example, is already rolling out new features that are intended to make them GDPR compliant worldwide.
  - guitarbill 9y ago
    As are all large cloud providers [0][1][2], because obviously. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/ [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/TrustCenter/Privacy/gdpr/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/TrustCenter/Privacy/gdpr/def... [2] https://cloud.google.com/security/gdpr/ https://cloud.google.com/security/gdpr/
    - solarkraft 9y ago
      > obviously Isn't it a significant expense to comply with the GDPR, especially in Facebook's business? I'm guessing the only companies doing this don't have much to lose by complying globally.
      - guitarbill 9y ago
        I mean cloud providers are different. First, there's that level of indirection. You're a customer, not necessarily falling under the GDPR, but your customers might. So the mechanisms are in place to handle that worldwide, which you could choose to extend to everybody. Then there's the data from you being a customer directly, which is largely exempt from many GDPR things like opt-in anyway, since they actually need it to e.g. bill you, provide customer support, etc. So far, I don't think any cloud providers show you ads based on your usage, but it's only a matter of time :) / :(
      - zyx321 9y ago
        If you do business in the EU, you'll incur most of those expenses anyways. It makes sense that companies would offer privacy protection to all their paying customers. In the case of Facebook, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to offer privacy protection to their livestock.
      - lucideer 9y ago
        There's three costs: 1. The administrative/maintenance cost of complying: this is sunk if you have European users at all. 2. The cost of the measures to your business model, if personal user data is a central part of your business model. 3. The adminstrative cost of maintaining radically different user data management systems for EU -vs- non-EU users. Doing number 3 is only worthwhile if it's a lower cost than number 2. I would guess 3 would be higher than 2 for most companies. Clearly, 2 is extremely high for Facebook.
- smueller1234 9y ago
  I know of at least two of the large (multiple tens and hundreds of billions in market cap) tech companies (other than Apple, already mentioned in this thread) who are making a lot of global changes for GDPR. So no, I don't think that response is universal.
  - aylmao 9y ago
    Which ones?
amelius 9y ago
Playing devil's advocate: it could also be that their implementation of the GDPR necessarily restricts functionality from the user's point of view. And they simply want their users to have the best (in their view) possible experience.
- quickben 9y ago
  After all this time, all the leaks, and everything that came out, you are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is so sad.
  - frockington 9y ago
    They explicitly said they were playing devils advocate. Not that they were expressing their views
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      Playing devils advicate, what if we left silly ideas at home.
    - quickben 9y ago
      There is an approach to use a disclaimer to state a controversial view. There are many forms to this: "I am not a racist, but...", "No offense, but..." , "Let me play a devil's advocate, ..." , Etc. The form usually proceeds by stating a view. You think attribution is more important than the propagation (or content) of the view, and that is fine. For me, the content and propagation usually rank higher. In the case of FB, I think we all had enough proof that the quest for money is above everything. According to the latest leaks about their execs, even above human lives. So, at this point, I find any attempt to defend them, even hypothetical, sad.
- smt88 9y ago
  GDPR can't restrict functionality that I want because if I really wanted it, Facebook would ask me to opt-in and I would. GDPR doesn't penalize or prevent innovation. It just forces it out into the open.

dclowd9901 9y ago

Yeah, and to a degree that theyre willing to eat the cost of maintaining a much more complicated privacy structure (and, inherently, code base) to not roll it out everywhere.

slivym 9y ago
I don't think that maintaining different strategies in different areas is the more costly procedure. The assumption you're making here is that GDPR is one and done. In all likelihood, most major jurisdictions are going to introduce privacy laws at some point. If you don't build your international service to allow for different rules in different jurisdictions you're going to have to follow the strictest of those laws. Heck, I'd put money on some countries forcing some web services to record some data for law enforcement purposes and other countries barring facebook from recording the same data for privacy reasons. So really, you have to build this system in a way that can be tailored to each market you operate in.

dominotw 9y ago

Wouldn't you get the same answer if you ask CEO of any company though?

Redklao 9y ago
No reason to think so. Apple, for example, is already rolling out new features that are intended to make them GDPR compliant worldwide.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  As are all large cloud providers [0][1][2], because obviously. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/ [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/TrustCenter/Privacy/gdpr/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/TrustCenter/Privacy/gdpr/def... [2] https://cloud.google.com/security/gdpr/ https://cloud.google.com/security/gdpr/
  - solarkraft 9y ago
    > obviously Isn't it a significant expense to comply with the GDPR, especially in Facebook's business? I'm guessing the only companies doing this don't have much to lose by complying globally.
    - guitarbill 9y ago
      I mean cloud providers are different. First, there's that level of indirection. You're a customer, not necessarily falling under the GDPR, but your customers might. So the mechanisms are in place to handle that worldwide, which you could choose to extend to everybody. Then there's the data from you being a customer directly, which is largely exempt from many GDPR things like opt-in anyway, since they actually need it to e.g. bill you, provide customer support, etc. So far, I don't think any cloud providers show you ads based on your usage, but it's only a matter of time :) / :(
    - zyx321 9y ago
      If you do business in the EU, you'll incur most of those expenses anyways. It makes sense that companies would offer privacy protection to all their paying customers. In the case of Facebook, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to offer privacy protection to their livestock.
    - lucideer 9y ago
      There's three costs: 1. The administrative/maintenance cost of complying: this is sunk if you have European users at all. 2. The cost of the measures to your business model, if personal user data is a central part of your business model. 3. The adminstrative cost of maintaining radically different user data management systems for EU -vs- non-EU users. Doing number 3 is only worthwhile if it's a lower cost than number 2. I would guess 3 would be higher than 2 for most companies. Clearly, 2 is extremely high for Facebook.
smueller1234 9y ago
I know of at least two of the large (multiple tens and hundreds of billions in market cap) tech companies (other than Apple, already mentioned in this thread) who are making a lot of global changes for GDPR. So no, I don't think that response is universal.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Which ones?

amelius 9y ago

Playing devil's advocate: it could also be that their implementation of the GDPR necessarily restricts functionality from the user's point of view. And they simply want their users to have the best (in their view) possible experience.

quickben 9y ago
After all this time, all the leaks, and everything that came out, you are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is so sad.
- frockington 9y ago
  They explicitly said they were playing devils advocate. Not that they were expressing their views
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    Playing devils advicate, what if we left silly ideas at home.
  - quickben 9y ago
    There is an approach to use a disclaimer to state a controversial view. There are many forms to this: "I am not a racist, but...", "No offense, but..." , "Let me play a devil's advocate, ..." , Etc. The form usually proceeds by stating a view. You think attribution is more important than the propagation (or content) of the view, and that is fine. For me, the content and propagation usually rank higher. In the case of FB, I think we all had enough proof that the quest for money is above everything. According to the latest leaks about their execs, even above human lives. So, at this point, I find any attempt to defend them, even hypothetical, sad.
smt88 9y ago
GDPR can't restrict functionality that I want because if I really wanted it, Facebook would ask me to opt-in and I would. GDPR doesn't penalize or prevent innovation. It just forces it out into the open.