8 ms·

There is no legal right to Facebook, but if Facebook wants to do business here, it has to abide by our rules. And our rules are very simple, you cannot deny ser

• ovao 8y ago
  It's disconcerting to me that under the GDPR, online businesses appear to be losing the ability to deny services to a user who knowingly, and with clear consent, chooses to take personal responsibility over the data they provide to said businesses. Regardless of whether this is for the "greater good", this is deeply unsettling territory.
  • waisbrot 8y ago
    How did you determine "knowingly, and with clear consent"? I guess I'd agree that if someone wrote a 5 page paper describing all the ways that Facebook harvests their data and what might be done with it afterwards then they should be allowed to do what they want? But I suspect most people would be like "uhhh, I think they, um, know what pages I liked? And maybe they use that for ads?"
    • ovao 8y ago
      I'm not referring to Facebook specifically. The dialog that Facebook's displaying to EU users (according to the tweet) isn't actually very clear in itself about what they're asking users for. "Clear consent", in my mind, would be something along the lines of "we use tracking cookies and tracking on widgets third-party websites embed, as well as the data you provide to us in terms of posts, comments, photos and other content to personalize the ads you see". If you accept those terms, well, then you certainly can't be surprised when Facebook — or whoever — does precisely that.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    Your phrasing is confusing. Why would the business want to deny services to a user who chooses to take personal responsibility over the data they provide?
    • ovao 8y ago
      Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'm suggesting that a business should have some right to deny service to a user who chooses not to participate in tracking, so long as it's made abundantly and plainly clear to said user that they'd be tracked, and that the user consents to that. Based on my interpretation, the GDPR simply precludes that possibility.
      • dbrgn 8y ago
        I assume if you made a business where the user can sell their behavioral data for a service in return, and if the whole goal of the business was selling data in return for a service, then I would interpret the data collection to be strictly required for the business goal and thus legal under the GDPR (given explicit consent). The official goal of Facebook is not "buying your data" but "providing a social network". Thus, targeted ads are not strictly necessary for providing that service.
        • icebraining 8y ago
          I think the data must be actually necessary for the thing you're providing to the user. So if you're paying cash in exchange for data, that wouldn't be allowed, because you don't need someone's data in order to give them cash.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • mrweasel 8y ago
    You're not allow to operate that way in most other businesses anyway. You can't sell leaded paint, even if clearly marked. You can't sell unsafe cars, even if you tell people that even low speed impacts will kill them. There's a ton of stuff you can't do, even with clear consent, because otherwise people who lack the means to understand the compromises or afford the safer choices will suffer.
    • tlrobinson 8y ago
      Those are safety/environmental issues. Showing you ads based on your preferences is not.
      • mrweasel 8y ago
        You could easily argue that tracking users behaviour is a safety issue. But fair enough, how about the loan business, you aren't allowed to charge overly high interest on loans. That's neither a safety or environmental issue.
        • ovao 8y ago
          Predatory interest rates frankly don't concern or particularly bother me. I think, for me, that only becomes a point of concern if a person is simply mentally unfit to make such decisions for themselves. In such cases the general guidance that someone else deemed fit should be responsible for that person's decisions applies, which goes back to the point you made earlier.
          • rosser 8y ago
            Even when those usurious, predatory rates are disproportionately charged to poorer people, who can afford to bear them less? Because that's how it works: price discrimination against the people least able to bear it. But, hey. Why should I care, if I'm not getting charged those rates, right?
            • 8y ago
  • s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I fail to see why. Without clauses like this, you'd be at the same place you were before, "Either agree to all of our completely invasive and probably unrelated terms, or go pound sand." The GDPR is shifting the balance of power back so that users do have some bargaining, not just the take it or leave it that's been so prevalent for so long.
    • ovao 8y ago
      I think the issue is that it really hasn't been a "take it or leave it" environment in the past years. Things have been done against the interest of user privacy by burying the explanations in long privacy policies filled with legalese, and in the general underhandedness of data exchange between multiple parties. The inability to remove data you've provided to a website, too, I think is problematic in ways. I'm a big proponent of user control, and a similarly big proponent of businesses taking much greater responsibility for the data they collect (my data was part of the Equifax breach, so I certainly get it). I am, however, leery about laws that essentially bind a business's hands in terms of how they can and cannot monetize on users, even when as there's A) clarity and B) honest, plain and upfront disclosure about how they do that. If a business tells me to agree to onerous terms to which I could never agree or to go pound sand, I'll gladly go pound sand. As a consumer, I lose no power there whatsoever.
      • jkaplowitz 8y ago
        You lose the power to participate in Facebook-only groups, which are surprisingly prevalent in some places. I have very limited access to two communities here in Montreal that I'd otherwise get a lot of value out of, because their only online communication system is via Facebook. I've told Facebook to pound sand for roughly their entire existence - never had an account even though I had the chance right after they expand beyond Harvard - and am considering whether life circumstances will increasingly force me (in practical rather than literal terms) to sign up. A company in that semi-mandatory position deserves lots of binding rules to protect the rights of unwilling users, just as is true for electric companies since you rarely have much choice there. Plus, I don't think Facebook's massive wall of several huge interlinked policies with soft-pedaled descriptions of what they do meets either of your A and B criteria, especially not when it's modally interrupting the user.
  • briandear 8y ago
    Government knows what’s best for you. Grown adults ought to be allowed to decide for themselves. But that can’t be allowed because there are fines to collect and people to control. Go ahead and downvote. We will never reconcile the opinion that adults need a government parent vs those of us that believe that informed consent should be enough.
  • crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Your account has been suspended for the foreseeable future for breaking the terms of service. No we will not tell you what you did. You already know what you did. Our automated systems found your policy violation and acted appropriately. They are beyond your comprehension or refutation. You may not talk to a person regarding your dismissal. It is against policy to discuss active or closed issues. You have no recourse other than social media or tech websites, and beg. And we still will likely not care. --Care of US tech companies. ....So, you want to live with rules for companies that allow this kind of egregious and arbitrary actions? I sure as hell don't. Want to see what this stuff devolves to? Look no further than Comcast and ilk.
    • kazinator 8y ago
      > They are beyond your comprehension or refutation. Where by "your" we mean "one's", i.e. effectively "our".
      • crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        I was writing the first part as a US company would say to a user. "Your" in that context was from the company to the user they wronged.
    • ovao 8y ago
      Either we’re not talking about the same thing, or I don’t quite understand how your comment relates to mine. I really can’t answer your question.
  • Marysville 8y ago
    It's like seat belts. You cannot sell a car without seat belt regardless of customer's choice. The customer's choice come later whether or not he wants to put on the seat belt. Car = Service Seat belt = Tracking protection
• ars 8y ago
  And if higher paying ads are necessary for the service to work? Or do you foresee this being like drug prices, where the US subsidizes drug development for the world?
  • stedaniels 8y ago
    I'd be more understanding of your comment if Facebook was only just making a profit. However we both know it's raking in the cash.
    • ars 8y ago
      Are you saying this law should decide if someone is making "enough" money, before deciding if profit is necessary to provide a service?
  • icebraining 8y ago
    They aren't, though. There are other ways of making money. Like charging people. If people won't pay, well, worst things could befall the Union than Facebook leaving.
    • ars 8y ago
      So what you are saying is that the EU should tell Facebook they can not make money by having ads, instead they need to make money by charging people? Is that typical, for the EU to get that involved in business decisions?
      • icebraining 8y ago
        Well, first, ads are not the problem, tracking is. Also, they can make money from tracking, but they have to convince people to consent - more like a donation than a payment. But yes, the EU does get involved in plenty of business decisions, just like governments everywhere. Usually when an industry is misbehaving and violating what is established (e.g. by the ECHR) as the rights of individuals.
• andai 8y ago
  As an EU citizen I am offended by this regulation.
  • akie 8y ago
    How? I mean, why are you offended by this attempt to curb the data that companies can collect on you without your consent?
    • kodablah 8y ago
      How this reads: How are you offended by attempts to curb terrorism? How are you offended by attempts to save the children? We can agree on intent and disagree on practice. I disagree with the GDPR in practice, but agree with its intent. I think there are many other ways to tackle these problems, and this is probably the worst one (especially to start with assuming this is the first really enforced one).
  • mrec 8y ago
    Somewhat ironically, as a (UK) Leave voter I rather like it.
    • simonbarker87 8y ago
      Voting to leave doesn’t automatically mean one has to dislike all laws from the EU. It’s ok to want to leave the EU whilst also liking some aspects of what it brings us. As a person who voted remain this has been one of the most frustrating things about the whole Brexit situation, it’s like it has to be a binary status: one either loves the EU and everything about it or you hate the EU and membership brings no benefits at all. I don’t think it’s ironic that you like this law, I think it’s understandable that you would if you have privacy concerns and, given T. May’s choices over the years, you were unlikely to get it without membership to the EU.
      • mrec 8y ago
        I couldn't agree more; I too get frustated by the degeneration of most public debate. Personally I was very much on the fence, leaning net Leave on the meta level (major constitutional change should not happen without a popular mandate) but net Remain on the object level (especially on things like digital rights, where the UK has a long and sordid history of tin-pot authoritarianism long predating T. May).
• halfdan 8y ago
  Given their de facto monopoly I'm not sure "There is no legal right to Facebook" is correct anymore. It's sort of like the internet where if you were denied access you'd have a significant disadvantage in society - it could easily be argued that denying access to Facebook gives you a similar disadvantage. At the end of the day this will need to be decided in courts.
  • BlackDeath3 8y ago
    Personally, I'd really not like to see a precedent set for a company entering a market, doing very well, and then being legally compelled to provide their product as some sort of legal right to an entire population. It might be a different story if said company is employing anti-competitive practices, but telling somebody that they're now legally obligated to serve a community because they're just too good at what they do, or so popular that nobody else can best them, seems a little too authoritarian for my taste.
    • jkaplowitz 8y ago
      Oh, they're allowed to withdraw from the market, or decouple the privacy-invasive bits and find a way to make that work financially when users don't opt in to those. Nobody's forcing them to serve Europe if they insist on being this awful regarding mandatory tracking. They're free to allow space for a competitor to grow with a different attitude toward privacy.
      • BlackDeath3 8y ago
        Right, I'm not talking about withdrawing from the market, I'm talking about remaining in the market and being allowed, as a private company providing a private service, to freely associate. I have no qualms with a competitor starting up to serve those denied by Facebook, but let's not muddy the water by equivocating a monopoly as a result of anti-competitive practices with one that forms simply because nobody wants to use anything else.
        • jkaplowitz 8y ago
• zerostar07 8y ago
  What is facebook's business? Targeted advertising. They don't sell you a friends management system for $0, they sell targeted ads to people who expect to receive targeted ads, and tracking is necessary for that. The same can be said about google's search service. The search still works, but adsense and adwords won't work without your private info. And google can claim it doesn't sell search, they sell ads.
  • KozmoNau7 8y ago
    It's not strictly about which services you are selling, it is about which services you are providing, and Facebook absolutely provide a social network website/app. Google absolutely provides search and email.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• spullara 8y ago
  Since they use that data to sort your feed I think they can argue it is necessary for the service to operate.
  • KozmoNau7 8y ago
    It is not essential that they sort my feed, though. Everything still works perfectly fine with a simple chronological feed. None of the tracking they do is essential to the service they ostensibly provide to their users, namely as a microblogging/discussion/sharing platform.
    • rock_hard 8y ago
      I don’t think most users would find value in a product like Facebook or Google without ranking actually. I bet that nobody would! Ranking is what makes these products work...and it requires data to do the ranking.
      • KozmoNau7 8y ago
        Why do you think ranking is important? A simple chronological news feed should be perfectly fine. Sure, rank search results based on how many users a given group has, and put the most popular ones at the top. That doesn't require violating anyone's privacy.
        • rock_hard 8y ago
          Trust me, if ranking had no value...no product team would bother implementing it. The reason ranking is used left and right these days is because it makes products dramatically better.
          • KozmoNau7 8y ago
            And they are certainly allowed to do ranking. But they can only do it on non-PII data, on data that has been deliberately made public, and on data which people have consented to its collection and storage with unequivocal opt-in.
• HumanHater 8y ago
  In that case Facebook should offer user a choice between paying for the service directly or letting advertiser to do that. I doubt that any nontrivial amount of users would choose to pay even $100/year so that wouldn't change anything for Facebook. However it could be enough to comply with weird EU regulation.
  • andai 8y ago
    I heard recently that Facebook was considering this and would have to charge $11 per user per month to make up for the ad revenue.
• totony 8y ago
  What if you provided an alternate access model? E.g. allow them to either sign up to the tracking or pay 100$/month for access Tracking would not be mandatory to access the service, as the alternative way (to pay for the service) is available