5 ms·

Facebook, Google, Instagram and WhatsApp are accused of forcing users to consent to targeted advertising to use the services. Privacy group noyb.eu, led by act

Facebook, Google, Instagram and WhatsApp are accused of forcing users to consent to targeted advertising to use the services. Privacy group noyb.eu, led by activist Max Schrems, said people were not being given a "free choice". I mean, that just isn't a valid complaint IMO. You have a choice -- you can not use Facebook, or not use Google, or not use Instagram, or not use WhatsApp. If you're using a "free" service that is ad-funded, why do you think you have a right to use it without consenting to the ads?

freeflight 8y ago
It is a very valid complaint and becomes even more valid as Facebook is scrutinized even further. Zuckerberg's EU hearing was a rather good indicator of where this is heading when MEP's specifically singled out: - Facebook's business practices in general, the MEP's do not believe that what Facebook is doing can be done in the same way while respecting users privacy. Thus they kept asking how Facebook is planning to monetize it's service in the future while respecting their user's data. - Having Facebook admit to its monopoly position in the EU by asking Zuckerberg for any Facebook competition he knows of, in the EU. There's also this whole issue with Facebook simply slurping up WhatsApp, and all its user's data, even tho WhatsApp users never consented to any of that. I made a point of never giving Facebook my mobile number, a point that's made completely irrelevant when Facebook just throws money around to get any data they want complete with some manufactured opt-out consent.
king_phil 8y ago
Then you don't understand the most fundamental thing about the GDPR: "Kopplungsverbot" (german privacy law had that for ages before GDPR). You can't force someone to consent to marketing because he wants to use your service. Everything that is not part of the core service needs consent that can be withdrawn at every time. The core service of facebook is access to the network, not that my data is processed to show me better advertising. The advertising is in facebook's interest, not mine. "But we make our revenue from ads" is not a valid explanation. If your service was "sign up to see better ads", then that would be your core business and no consent needed. Best thing ever happend.
- agensaequivocum 8y ago
  That is insane. As a private company they have the right to do business with whom they please. If a company refuses service because a potiential customer doesn't agree to their term, it is the companies right. No one is entitled to a good or service of some one else.
  - joepie91_ 8y ago
    That is absolutely incorrect for a multitude of reasons, ranging from anti-discriminatory laws, to antitrust laws, to contract law, to indeed privacy legislation. This kind of "corporations have absolute rights to do whatever they want as long as it's agreed to" stance is specific to the US. The rest of the Western world doesn't do that, and for very good reason - it makes for an extremely unhealthy society where corporations no longer act in the best interest of society.
craigsmansion 8y ago
No, Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Whatsapp have a choice, on whether they want to continue operating in the European market. > why do you think you have a right to use it without consenting to the ads? Consenting to targetted ads. That's a big difference. All operators can show ads like they always have, but they can't specifically tailor them to the individual, using accumulated data, without their consent.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Yes, and this is the decision that Facebook and Google have made. They will only operate for users that have given their consent, and have chosen not to do business with those who do not. Isn't this what you want? They are fully complying with the law and only doing business with people who have consented.
  - craigsmansion 8y ago
    What decision have they made? I'm fairly sure they both will be compliant. > They will only operate for users that have given their consent Well, they can't. It's not their choice to make anymore: users in the EU can no longer sign their online privacy away. If that is not something a company can live with, they should be looking for darker pastures elsewhere.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > they should look for darker pastures elsewhere I honestly hope they do this. Every EU citizens should have their FB accounts, Gmail accounts, and all other internet services deleted, and then blocked from the majority of internet services. Then those citizens can decide if it was all worth it.
a_imho 8y ago
Completely backwards, violators have a choice, either play by the EU rules or move their business elsewhere.
methodover 8y ago
They don't, and this argument by Max Schrems is ridiculous. There is no provision in the GDPR that says if you fund your site with ads, you now have to provide an ad-free version.
- taysic 8y ago
  Not an ad-free version but you have to provide one without personalized ads being used. Non-personalized ads make far less money than personalized.
  - methodover 8y ago
    I see no reading of the GDPR that would lead you to that conclusion... The GDPR requires many things, but there's nothing in there that says you can't reject the customer if they don't opt-in to the things you want them to opt-in to. Do you have a citation from the GDPR that leads you to believe that I am wrong on that point?
    - azernik 8y ago
      https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ "Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance" This is one of the core provisions.
      - methodover 8y ago
        Recital 43 is a fair objection -- I should rephrase what I said in light of it. I should have said: > "The GDPR requires many things, but there's nothing in there that says you can't reject the customer if they don't opt-in to the things you need them to opt-in to in order to provide the service." The last sentence of recital 43 says that consent can only be given to those personal data processing operations that are necessary for the performance of a contract/provision of the service. In Google and Facebook's case, collection of personal data for the purpose of targeted ads is necessary for the service because targeted ads provides the source of revenue for the service's operation.

freeflight 8y ago

It is a very valid complaint and becomes even more valid as Facebook is scrutinized even further. Zuckerberg's EU hearing was a rather good indicator of where this is heading when MEP's specifically singled out: - Facebook's business practices in general, the MEP's do not believe that what Facebook is doing can be done in the same way while respecting users privacy. Thus they kept asking how Facebook is planning to monetize it's service in the future while respecting their user's data. - Having Facebook admit to its monopoly position in the EU by asking Zuckerberg for any Facebook competition he knows of, in the EU. There's also this whole issue with Facebook simply slurping up WhatsApp, and all its user's data, even tho WhatsApp users never consented to any of that. I made a point of never giving Facebook my mobile number, a point that's made completely irrelevant when Facebook just throws money around to get any data they want complete with some manufactured opt-out consent.

king_phil 8y ago

Then you don't understand the most fundamental thing about the GDPR: "Kopplungsverbot" (german privacy law had that for ages before GDPR). You can't force someone to consent to marketing because he wants to use your service. Everything that is not part of the core service needs consent that can be withdrawn at every time. The core service of facebook is access to the network, not that my data is processed to show me better advertising. The advertising is in facebook's interest, not mine. "But we make our revenue from ads" is not a valid explanation. If your service was "sign up to see better ads", then that would be your core business and no consent needed. Best thing ever happend.

agensaequivocum 8y ago
That is insane. As a private company they have the right to do business with whom they please. If a company refuses service because a potiential customer doesn't agree to their term, it is the companies right. No one is entitled to a good or service of some one else.
- joepie91_ 8y ago
  That is absolutely incorrect for a multitude of reasons, ranging from anti-discriminatory laws, to antitrust laws, to contract law, to indeed privacy legislation. This kind of "corporations have absolute rights to do whatever they want as long as it's agreed to" stance is specific to the US. The rest of the Western world doesn't do that, and for very good reason - it makes for an extremely unhealthy society where corporations no longer act in the best interest of society.

craigsmansion 8y ago

No, Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Whatsapp have a choice, on whether they want to continue operating in the European market. > why do you think you have a right to use it without consenting to the ads? Consenting to targetted ads. That's a big difference. All operators can show ads like they always have, but they can't specifically tailor them to the individual, using accumulated data, without their consent.

stale2002 8y ago
Yes, and this is the decision that Facebook and Google have made. They will only operate for users that have given their consent, and have chosen not to do business with those who do not. Isn't this what you want? They are fully complying with the law and only doing business with people who have consented.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  What decision have they made? I'm fairly sure they both will be compliant. > They will only operate for users that have given their consent Well, they can't. It's not their choice to make anymore: users in the EU can no longer sign their online privacy away. If that is not something a company can live with, they should be looking for darker pastures elsewhere.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > they should look for darker pastures elsewhere I honestly hope they do this. Every EU citizens should have their FB accounts, Gmail accounts, and all other internet services deleted, and then blocked from the majority of internet services. Then those citizens can decide if it was all worth it.

a_imho 8y ago

Completely backwards, violators have a choice, either play by the EU rules or move their business elsewhere.

methodover 8y ago

They don't, and this argument by Max Schrems is ridiculous. There is no provision in the GDPR that says if you fund your site with ads, you now have to provide an ad-free version.

taysic 8y ago
Not an ad-free version but you have to provide one without personalized ads being used. Non-personalized ads make far less money than personalized.
- methodover 8y ago
  I see no reading of the GDPR that would lead you to that conclusion... The GDPR requires many things, but there's nothing in there that says you can't reject the customer if they don't opt-in to the things you want them to opt-in to. Do you have a citation from the GDPR that leads you to believe that I am wrong on that point?
  - azernik 8y ago
    https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ "Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance" This is one of the core provisions.
    - methodover 8y ago
      Recital 43 is a fair objection -- I should rephrase what I said in light of it. I should have said: > "The GDPR requires many things, but there's nothing in there that says you can't reject the customer if they don't opt-in to the things you need them to opt-in to in order to provide the service." The last sentence of recital 43 says that consent can only be given to those personal data processing operations that are necessary for the performance of a contract/provision of the service. In Google and Facebook's case, collection of personal data for the purpose of targeted ads is necessary for the service because targeted ads provides the source of revenue for the service's operation.