4 ms·

The question the media should be asking Facebook is why can't they just stop tracking those users? Why must they fight a government trying to protect its citiz

by 3xblah 8y ago

The question the media should be asking Facebook is why can't they just stop tracking those users? Why must they fight a government trying to protect its citizens? Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers? It cannot be the side of users, at least not ones in Belgium. They cannot claim they are "neutral". They must have persuasive answers prepared for such questions.

InitialLastName 8y ago
> The question the media should be asking Facebook is why can't they just stop tracking those users? Because it would reduce their profit margin, and some chunks of their founding society hold that corporations are duty-bound to maximize profits.
- mikro2nd 8y ago
  I suspect that it's just too difficult, possibly next-to impossible for them. Tracking is (I assume) baked into every aspect of every system they have, and carving out an exception for one small country is just... exceedingly high effort. Given a large and complex codebase, may well be close to impossible even assuming years of significant effort and cost ("Are we sure we got all the places...?") the only outcome of which (from FB's perspective) would be to reduce their profits very slightly. I'm not trying to excuse their unpardonable behaviour here, just trying to think unemotionally about what might be going on behind the scenes. Personally I wish they'd stop tracking me - and I have no FB account. I may have to emigrate to Belgium. Good beer an added incentive.
  - gpvos 8y ago
    The same rules apply in the entire EU, so that'll be a sizeable chunk of their revenue.
  - hgasimov 8y ago
    I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. They have excellent software engineers. If they followed the rule of "separation of concerns", only small percent of their codebase is responsible for tracking and they will need a chahge only in that part of the code.
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      Yours is a very generous assumption, having in mind that Facebook preferred to take over, improve and upgrade PHP, compared to moving away from PHP. I'd think the code that serves your core business needs and brings in the real money is very conservatively managed -- and judging by the circumstantial evidence we have, I believe that's exactly the case for them.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      > I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. If that's the case, and facebook complies, then I think I'll start doing all my browsing through a VPN that exits in Belgium or Germany then.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. On the flipside of that very same coin, <insert three-lettered agency here> claims that it is difficult to discern between who's an American citizens and who's not, so they just deal with it "honestly", afterwards (even though the DOJ has found them to be breaching the 4th numerous times). I think we've reached a stage where compulsion, through punitive fines, is the only viable means to make these entities respect the boundaries that have been erected. It might not be much effort to create the infrastructure to delimit their tracking (in both cases) but they have a much higher ROI for not doing so, currently, than actually doing so (if that makes sense).
  - faceplanted 8y ago
    The problem with that line of thinking is that it paints systemic problems as somehow more justifiable than non systemic problems, it implies they were so convinced they'd always be able to track everyone as much as they like with no oversight that they built a machine with no off switch. But this isn't new, these complaints about privacy and tracking have been around a decade, they didn't build facebook before anyone knew the constant tracking was controversial, they built it over a decade+ knowing the whole time that they were the subject of constant criticism. They have switches all over their site for things like turning off targeted advertising, and they have entire infrastructures for dealing with local laws, so they idea that it's unfeasible for them to remove the tracking for any reason other than they wanted it to be that way is bordering on dishonest.
  - csydas 8y ago
    I think if we also look at a proposed legislation unemotionally, it would be understandable that this would not be expected to be done in a single operation, but rather, a concentrated and on-going effort to begin to either decouple the tracking from existing code, or rewrite functionality without the tracking, and that Facebook would be subject to assessments to ensure they are continuing to do so. I get that likely this very likely means that just burning the whole thing to the ground and starting from scratch for most functionality would be less of a time sink, but the point is more that Facebook actually begin to engage in operations to remove tracking from their infra, not just throw up their hands and say "It'll be too much work!". We can know for sure if it's a new code base that just never had it to begin with, and Facebook was transparent in the migration process. Regardless, though, I do get that the thrust of your point is that this is not a trivial task.
    - mikro2nd 8y ago
      I, too, hope that the Belgian government succeeds in this. I guess my point is that it is probably cheaper at this stage for FB to put up a legal fight than to actually implement the necessary changes. I hope that gets fixed!
  - dillondoyle 8y ago
    Plus what is a non-tracked FB experience? I'm seriously asking because I might not understand what 'tracking' means in this specific legal context
- chillacy 8y ago
  Businesses are the true customer (since they spend the money) and businesses don't want to waste money on users who are less likely to click or buy either.
dexen 8y ago
>why can't they just stop tracking those users? It's defense in depth. Aside of this particularly shady and/or illegal practice, Facebook is[1] engaged in several other practices that could or should be questioned. Abandoning of any single of these practices would not break, nor even serious harm Facebook. However, abandoning several of them would put a dent in their finances. As long as FB can play defense of the advanced beachhead of "user tracking", their other, less outrageous and/or less illegal practices are effectively taking cover behind it, and can go on unhindered. Should the first layer be peeled off, a next one would come under attack just as this one is. This process, if left to progress, would eventually leave Facebook stripped to its core - which isn't much more beyond the original "hot or not" swapping of images and commenting on them. -- [1] almost certainly, given its vastness and multi-pronged approach to vacuuming up, and mixing & matching user data
gyaniv 8y ago
> Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers? It cannot be the side of users, at least not ones in Belgium. They cannot claim they are "neutral". Facebook is on not on the side of the "users" (or what you would describe as it's users). If you look at Facebooks business model the ones actually paying them for a product are the advertisers, which is why FB is on their side. 'if you're not paying for the product, you are the product' - which means we are the product that Facebook is selling, or more precisely, our data. Of course, I'm sure if Facebook is asked directly, they wouldn't admit and find a way to say they care about the people, and all that. But from the business side (and probably the investors side), Facebook shoudn't and doesn't care about privacy or other concerns of it's users (the citizen).
maxxxxx 8y ago
“Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers?” They are on the side of who pays them. It’s pretty simple.

by 3xblah 8y ago

InitialLastName 8y ago

> The question the media should be asking Facebook is why can't they just stop tracking those users? Because it would reduce their profit margin, and some chunks of their founding society hold that corporations are duty-bound to maximize profits.

mikro2nd 8y ago
I suspect that it's just too difficult, possibly next-to impossible for them. Tracking is (I assume) baked into every aspect of every system they have, and carving out an exception for one small country is just... exceedingly high effort. Given a large and complex codebase, may well be close to impossible even assuming years of significant effort and cost ("Are we sure we got all the places...?") the only outcome of which (from FB's perspective) would be to reduce their profits very slightly. I'm not trying to excuse their unpardonable behaviour here, just trying to think unemotionally about what might be going on behind the scenes. Personally I wish they'd stop tracking me - and I have no FB account. I may have to emigrate to Belgium. Good beer an added incentive.
- gpvos 8y ago
  The same rules apply in the entire EU, so that'll be a sizeable chunk of their revenue.
- hgasimov 8y ago
  I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. They have excellent software engineers. If they followed the rule of "separation of concerns", only small percent of their codebase is responsible for tracking and they will need a chahge only in that part of the code.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Yours is a very generous assumption, having in mind that Facebook preferred to take over, improve and upgrade PHP, compared to moving away from PHP. I'd think the code that serves your core business needs and brings in the real money is very conservatively managed -- and judging by the circumstantial evidence we have, I believe that's exactly the case for them.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    > I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. If that's the case, and facebook complies, then I think I'll start doing all my browsing through a VPN that exits in Belgium or Germany then.
  - renholder 8y ago
    >I don't think it would be that much effort for facebook to stop tracking Belgium or German users. On the flipside of that very same coin, <insert three-lettered agency here> claims that it is difficult to discern between who's an American citizens and who's not, so they just deal with it "honestly", afterwards (even though the DOJ has found them to be breaching the 4th numerous times). I think we've reached a stage where compulsion, through punitive fines, is the only viable means to make these entities respect the boundaries that have been erected. It might not be much effort to create the infrastructure to delimit their tracking (in both cases) but they have a much higher ROI for not doing so, currently, than actually doing so (if that makes sense).
- faceplanted 8y ago
  The problem with that line of thinking is that it paints systemic problems as somehow more justifiable than non systemic problems, it implies they were so convinced they'd always be able to track everyone as much as they like with no oversight that they built a machine with no off switch. But this isn't new, these complaints about privacy and tracking have been around a decade, they didn't build facebook before anyone knew the constant tracking was controversial, they built it over a decade+ knowing the whole time that they were the subject of constant criticism. They have switches all over their site for things like turning off targeted advertising, and they have entire infrastructures for dealing with local laws, so they idea that it's unfeasible for them to remove the tracking for any reason other than they wanted it to be that way is bordering on dishonest.
- csydas 8y ago
  I think if we also look at a proposed legislation unemotionally, it would be understandable that this would not be expected to be done in a single operation, but rather, a concentrated and on-going effort to begin to either decouple the tracking from existing code, or rewrite functionality without the tracking, and that Facebook would be subject to assessments to ensure they are continuing to do so. I get that likely this very likely means that just burning the whole thing to the ground and starting from scratch for most functionality would be less of a time sink, but the point is more that Facebook actually begin to engage in operations to remove tracking from their infra, not just throw up their hands and say "It'll be too much work!". We can know for sure if it's a new code base that just never had it to begin with, and Facebook was transparent in the migration process. Regardless, though, I do get that the thrust of your point is that this is not a trivial task.
  - mikro2nd 8y ago
    I, too, hope that the Belgian government succeeds in this. I guess my point is that it is probably cheaper at this stage for FB to put up a legal fight than to actually implement the necessary changes. I hope that gets fixed!
- dillondoyle 8y ago
  Plus what is a non-tracked FB experience? I'm seriously asking because I might not understand what 'tracking' means in this specific legal context
chillacy 8y ago
Businesses are the true customer (since they spend the money) and businesses don't want to waste money on users who are less likely to click or buy either.

dexen 8y ago

>why can't they just stop tracking those users? It's defense in depth. Aside of this particularly shady and/or illegal practice, Facebook is[1] engaged in several other practices that could or should be questioned. Abandoning of any single of these practices would not break, nor even serious harm Facebook. However, abandoning several of them would put a dent in their finances. As long as FB can play defense of the advanced beachhead of "user tracking", their other, less outrageous and/or less illegal practices are effectively taking cover behind it, and can go on unhindered. Should the first layer be peeled off, a next one would come under attack just as this one is. This process, if left to progress, would eventually leave Facebook stripped to its core - which isn't much more beyond the original "hot or not" swapping of images and commenting on them. -- [1] almost certainly, given its vastness and multi-pronged approach to vacuuming up, and mixing & matching user data

gyaniv 8y ago

> Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers? It cannot be the side of users, at least not ones in Belgium. They cannot claim they are "neutral". Facebook is on not on the side of the "users" (or what you would describe as it's users). If you look at Facebooks business model the ones actually paying them for a product are the advertisers, which is why FB is on their side. 'if you're not paying for the product, you are the product' - which means we are the product that Facebook is selling, or more precisely, our data. Of course, I'm sure if Facebook is asked directly, they wouldn't admit and find a way to say they care about the people, and all that. But from the business side (and probably the investors side), Facebook shoudn't and doesn't care about privacy or other concerns of it's users (the citizen).

maxxxxx 8y ago

“Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers?” They are on the side of who pays them. It’s pretty simple.