4 ms·

As much as I appreciate the sheer balls of this, it's clearly not in compliance with the law according to the recitals; consent gained in this fashion is not "f

As much as I appreciate the sheer balls of this, it's clearly not in compliance with the law according to the recitals; consent gained in this fashion is not "freely given." Now personally, I think this approach should be acceptable -- if you don't like it, don't use it. But under the GDPR, that's not the deal. Be right back, making popcorn.

obelix_ 8y ago
No balls involved here. They know the number of users that will blindly click accept to whatever policy change popup appears. So it's standard mo to show users shit, get the clicks, then use the numbers to justify how much people love the platform. The rest of the herd then stands back and says hmmm maybe this is what people "really" want.
- salawat 8y ago
  Yeah... No. There may not be 'balls' here, but this is definitely the most hilariously bad way for Facebook to handle this. What this is REALLY saying is this: A) We here at Facebook aren't really about connecting people. We are about marketing, and ad delivery in order to generate revenue. B) The goal of keeping you connected and communicating with your social graph is so unimportant to us, that we are either technically incapable, or otherwise unwilling to provide service to customer bases that we cannot monetize. C) We will hold onto, and continue selling any data we have already collected about you, that we really never got informed consent from you on, because we told you it was about us connecting you, and you didn't read the fine print. So either accept, or here is a copy of your data. Excuse us while we sell what we already have. Ciao! This will NOT earn Facebook any "Good Faith" points in the court of public opinion, and is adding further fuel to the international fire of "how far will contract law be allowed to usurp fundamental rights?" Popcorn time indeed!
  - codycraven 8y ago
    Do you expect anything else from Facebook? "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb f__ks." -Mark Zuckerberg
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- guitarbill 8y ago
  Consent not freely given is not consent w.r.t. GDPR, so legally I'm not sure what the point is other than baiting the data protection agencies. So just because you agree doesn't mean it's binding, especially if it's unlawful. E.g. in Germany, contracts presented after purchase are void (EULAs), and you can't sign away your "Urheberrecht", or author's rights - which has interesting implications for copyright licenses. However, the regulators will take a very dim view on such behaviour. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jononor 8y ago
It is interesting that Facebook has chosen such an obviously non-compliant approach. Maybe they think thyy will just get away with ignoring the regulation. Or they want just want to see what EU move and user feedback will be as soon as possible, so they can start to prepare/work it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> As much as I appreciate the sheer balls of this, it's clearly not in compliance with the law according to the recitals; consent gained in this fashion is not "freely given." I think it's debatable. Yes, if they were denying service unrelated to the consent, that would not be freely given, but everything Facebook does with your account is covered by GDPR, and there doesn't seem to be a clear and explicit rule on the required degree of granularity of consent when multiple functions all require consent. I actually think this approach might be the safest thing FB can do regarding GDPR other than unilaterally and without recourse dumping every account of a person protected by the GDPR, perhaps while developing a completely new system with a different fundamental design and business model for the EU.

obelix_ 8y ago

No balls involved here. They know the number of users that will blindly click accept to whatever policy change popup appears. So it's standard mo to show users shit, get the clicks, then use the numbers to justify how much people love the platform. The rest of the herd then stands back and says hmmm maybe this is what people "really" want.

salawat 8y ago
Yeah... No. There may not be 'balls' here, but this is definitely the most hilariously bad way for Facebook to handle this. What this is REALLY saying is this: A) We here at Facebook aren't really about connecting people. We are about marketing, and ad delivery in order to generate revenue. B) The goal of keeping you connected and communicating with your social graph is so unimportant to us, that we are either technically incapable, or otherwise unwilling to provide service to customer bases that we cannot monetize. C) We will hold onto, and continue selling any data we have already collected about you, that we really never got informed consent from you on, because we told you it was about us connecting you, and you didn't read the fine print. So either accept, or here is a copy of your data. Excuse us while we sell what we already have. Ciao! This will NOT earn Facebook any "Good Faith" points in the court of public opinion, and is adding further fuel to the international fire of "how far will contract law be allowed to usurp fundamental rights?" Popcorn time indeed!
- codycraven 8y ago
  Do you expect anything else from Facebook? "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb f__ks." -Mark Zuckerberg
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
guitarbill 8y ago
Consent not freely given is not consent w.r.t. GDPR, so legally I'm not sure what the point is other than baiting the data protection agencies. So just because you agree doesn't mean it's binding, especially if it's unlawful. E.g. in Germany, contracts presented after purchase are void (EULAs), and you can't sign away your "Urheberrecht", or author's rights - which has interesting implications for copyright licenses. However, the regulators will take a very dim view on such behaviour. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jononor 8y ago

It is interesting that Facebook has chosen such an obviously non-compliant approach. Maybe they think thyy will just get away with ignoring the regulation. Or they want just want to see what EU move and user feedback will be as soon as possible, so they can start to prepare/work it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> As much as I appreciate the sheer balls of this, it's clearly not in compliance with the law according to the recitals; consent gained in this fashion is not "freely given." I think it's debatable. Yes, if they were denying service unrelated to the consent, that would not be freely given, but everything Facebook does with your account is covered by GDPR, and there doesn't seem to be a clear and explicit rule on the required degree of granularity of consent when multiple functions all require consent. I actually think this approach might be the safest thing FB can do regarding GDPR other than unilaterally and without recourse dumping every account of a person protected by the GDPR, perhaps while developing a completely new system with a different fundamental design and business model for the EU.