24 ms·
Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xlii 4y agoThat's Meta's core business, isn't it? Facebook was threatening to leave EU earlier, I wonder if that will make them act on those threats.
- samwillis 4y agoThem "leaving", as in having no legal/corporate presence in, the EU wouldn't remove obligations under GDPR. They would have to block all access from EU citizens to do that.
- stickfigure 4y agoThe sad future of the internet is companies picking a country and keeping all their servers and employees local. It's up to other countries to block; nobody is going to extradite over cookie warnings.
- Nextgrid 4y agoIn practice they will get away with it because good luck enforcing those penalties on a company without any assets you can reach.
- samwillis 4y agoCountries would block access for business advertising or operating with Facebook, and may even decide to block access to their users.
- dylan604 4y agoPunishing companies directly that do business with Facebook/Meta would probably be the strongest deterrent. If we can sanction countries, why not companies?
- ethbr0 4y agoThat's how sanctions are usually implemented. See: Russia and Iran, trickling down to their state businesses and armaments industries, tricking down to their suppliers. The only difference here would be there isn't a nation-state as the starting point.
- dylan604 4y agoSorry, I meant the other way around. Sanction Meta and subsidiaries, and then punish companies doing business with them.
- ethbr0 4y agoYup. That's what I meant too. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp doesn't care much about US sanctions, but other companies selling them {insert thing} do, if it has financial repercussions.
- bee_rider 4y agoI bet Facebook will still happily provide service in a region, even if the only customers for their ads there are groups like companies with no footprint in the country, foreign regimes that would like to influence elections, and locals who’ve figured out ways to evade local laws.
- pxeger1 4y agoThey could press criminal charges against all Meta executives and extradite them from the US. Of course this is ridiculous and will never happen for a number of reasons, but it shows that the EU doesn't have literally no teeth.
- from 4y agoAmerica requires dual criminality for extradition. America has no privacy law similar to GDPR so that couldn't happen + I think GDPR violations are a civil thing only (?).
- bbbbb5 4y ago> I think GDPR violations are a civil thing only (?). Correct, however most countries have various related criminal offences. (e.g https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/170/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/170/ena...) It's extremely unlikely any of these would be relevant in this context though.
- perlgeek 4y agoThere are at least two enforcement mechanisms: * Governments can reach Apple and Google, and thus force them to remove the apps from their app stores. * Diplomacy. EU and USA will have a lot of negotiation to do pretty soon. USA doesn't like how EU handles big tech and privacy. EU doesn't like how USA's preferred treatment of domestic electric cars in the "inflation reduction" act that went into effect a few days ago. If Meta pulls out of EU to dodge enforcement, the EU diplomats will surely bring that up, and work a solution into whatever treaty comes out of this.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago1. Force Apple and Google to remove the apps from stores. 2. Lowest effort DNS blocker to exclude the 90% who don't care enough to circumvent. 2. Let the lack of network effects and time do the rest. Sure, a few will hold on, and there will probably be a temporary "buy a phone with fb installed for 10000$" market, but given time, Facebook/Whatsapp/etc. will be dead in Europe.
- from 4y agoExcept politicians will have to come out as supporting a ban on the most popular apps that tens of millions people use every day. Which outside of HN circles would probably be unpopular (see how the proposed Tiktok ban was received in America). And have sites ever even been blocked for GDPR violations before / in which member states would mandating ISPs block sites on that basis even be allowed?
- malermeister 4y agoHope nobody working there likes to travel to Europe then...
- pxeger1 4y agoThe title is a bit misleading. > Meta is now prohibited to bypass the GDPR via a clause in the terms and conditions. Meta has to get "opt-in" consent for personalized advertisement and must provide users with a "yes/no" option
- dylan604 4y agoIt's one thing to provide on opt-in for new users, but will this mean retroactively resetting ALL users to no?
- tpxl 4y agoReset all preferences to 'no' for affected users, and ask them on the next login whether they would like this or not. Simple.
- dylan604 4y agoSimple for you and I, but not so simple if you're a lawyer working for Meta that can twist words and interpretations of those words strung together into sentences in a legal contract. At the end of the day, you and I don't matter in our interpretations. It is the lawyers and judges. Who do you trust?
- Nextgrid 4y agoGDPR actually mandates consent to be informed, so a simple, user-friendly explanation is more likely to win over 100 pages of legalese.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago>will this mean retroactively resetting ALL users to no? Yes, because Meta does not have explicit, informed consent from existing users.
- dylan604 4y agoAs if that has EVER stopped them before
- Nextgrid 4y agoSo even if the fine sticks and doesn't get overturned on appeal, that's 390 million over 4 years of blatantly breaching the GDPR, so on average ~97M/year. This means it's merely a cost of doing business and they should continue.
- erehweb 4y agoGDPR allows for much stiffer fines, which would surely be imposed if it was wilfully breached as you suggest.
- M2Ys4U 4y agoThey have also been ordered to stop doing what they're doing, and will face additional sanctions if they don't. When calculating fines under the GDPR the supervisory authorities have to take in to account whether the violation was intentional, previous violations and compliance with previous orders. In other words, if they don't stop now the fines will get bigger.
- whimsicalism 4y ago[flagged]
- Nextgrid 4y agoJust because we somehow ended up in a situation where spyware got effectively decriminalised doesn't mean it's a good situation especially in the long-term. If nobody is willing to pay for your product, maybe it shouldn't exist?
- stickfigure 4y agoHow much do you pay for HN?
- Nextgrid 4y agoI'd be more than happy to pay for HN, but I think it's a very bad example as it's not funded by any kind of ads/tracking (not directly at the very least).
- ericpauley 4y agoThe entire site is one giant ad for YC. The only difference is that HN has achieved an extremely effective content marketing strategy so tracking isn't needed.
- stickfigure 4y agoIt keeps a permanent list of your votes, comments, and submissions. It maintains your social credit score ("karma"). HN is absolutely tracking the hell out of you.
- jefftk 4y agoHN does have ads: they look like posts, but you can't vote or comment on them. They're job ads for YC companies. You can see a list of recent ones at https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs
- bunbun69 4y agoMeta can still use personal data for ads. They just have to explicitly ask for consent. I do not like these sensationalized titles on HN.
- elcomet 4y agoAnd no one will ever give them permission. Why would you?
- Nextgrid 4y agoGood riddance then? Time to find a new business model and maybe fire some people if your service can no longer sustain that many employees, or let a leaner competitor eat your lunch.
- malyk 4y agoIf I'm going to be shown ads I might as well see ones that I'm more likely to be interested in.
- williamdclt 4y ago- not if it comes at the price of huge invasion of privacy - Given the incredible amount of data they have, I'm constantly amazed at how bad FB/Amazon/others are at suggesting what I'm likely to be interested in
- Nextgrid 4y agoThankfully, the GDPR still allows you to opt into personal-data-based targeted advertising if you want to.
- thehappypm 4y agoIf the “yes” button was easier to click than the “no” button 90% of people would.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
- WithinReason 4y ago"Users therefore need to be provided with a yes/no ("opt-in") consent option, otherwise Meta may not use their data for personalized advertisement." I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.
- seydor 4y agoAccording to gdpr they must still offer the same service regardless of the user opt-in. Remains to be seen if FB can follow the GDPR there. Also not sure whether that point of GDPR is compatible with other kinds of trade agreements. Probably they will go for "Please choose between 50 horrible autoplaying spammy ads or 4 personalized"
- WithinReason 4y agoBut wouldn't different ads be a different service?
- samwillis 4y agoNo, under GDPR you can't coerce a user into give up their privacy in order to receive the service for free. If they offer the service for free, the tracking still need to be opt in.
- WithinReason 4y ago"But wouldn't different ads be a different service?" meaning wouldn't serving more annoying ads to the free tier be such coercion?
- nwellnhof 4y agoIf this was true, every major German news website would violate the GDPR because that's exactly what they do. Can you cite the relevant GDPR article?
- samwillis 4y agoIn the background to all this do note that the "number 2" executive at Meta is a former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg [0]. Meta see the regulatory situation in the EU and UK as a potentially existential risk. They know what they are doing is bad and lobbying is their number one tactic. They are at the "cigarette company" level of trying to prevent regulation of a business model that is ultimately at risk of being legislated out of existence. 0: https://about.meta.com/media-gallery/executives/ https://about.meta.com/media-gallery/executives/
- Cupertino95014 4y agoWorld party planning: China: I'll bring the hardware! US: I'll bring the software! EU: I'll bring the lawyers!
- joshenberg 4y agoGod knows China and the US were not bringing the consumer protections!
- Dumbdo 4y agoThis reads like it's straight from the comment section of a Facebook post and is low quality even for HN's recent discussion culture.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoFrom a German. That wouldn't be influencing your opinion, would it?
- Cupertino95014 4y ago.. and yet, internet memes get currency because they express something people feel and hadn't seen articulated, or at least so succinctly. So why don't you address the underlying issue instead of denigrating the meme? If you have something to say about it, that is.
- seydor 4y agoEU is first, with foolishly predictive tech regulation before it emerges. Like e.g. the requirement for AI to explain itself. GPT can surely explain to you very elaborately how they came to the wrong medical conclusion But what you say is actually accurate, the globalized world (excepting russia) has settled to these roles for these 3 players. EU is more of a legacy player without an army (or strong production base) that still "upholds ideals" and sells this image for worldwide PR. But you see where this ends up, countries bribing EU politicians to improve their world PR by association.
- cwkoss 4y agoIt's amazing how many HN readers in this thread seem to be down for technofuedalist accelerationism. Morals and ethics so easily get tossed out the window when nerds feel like their end of year bonus could be marginally threatened.
- no_time 4y agoAs an EU citizen all I can say is: Get fucked. I hope the EU grows a spine and actually doubles down instead of bowing to US pressure. >Fine for Meta more than tenfold from € 28 million to € 390 million. Third case on WhatsApp pending. Starting to get into a range for the fine that makes sense. Give it another tenfold increase and I'm content.
- dcgudeman 4y ago[flagged]
- Lio 4y agoWhat's with the unnecessary "lol" here? This is just about user choice and freedom from dark patterns. If you want tracking and targeted ads you are still free to enable that option. All others are asking for is a chance to opt out of targeting. I don't see why having that as an option is so bad. If ad targeting was such a great thing for users Facebook/Meta wouldn't have to fight tooth and nail to prevent people having nothing more than an opt out.
- no_time 4y agoI unironically enjoy non-targeted ads. Every time I see one that has nothing to do with my interests, I know that my meticulously tuned home network and browser settings are working.
- whatshisface 4y agoHow do you see ads if you've tuned your browser settings?
- no_time 4y ago1.) I have a work computer that is basically unprotected because it only has Chrome with a very lacking extension whitelist. It lives on its own VLAN because my regular one blackholes all requests to MS and this made my employer not so happy in the past. 2.) My cookie autodelete + adblocking setup means I have to click the "reject cookies" consent on YT once per session. Except one of my filters break the form and it's invisible. My lazy workaround is to disable ublock, click reject and reenable it so the video actually plays. During this ritual I catch a 1-2 second glimpse of a YT ad.
- denton-scratch 4y agoThe Irish DPC is supposed to be an independent regulator. In practice, it has acted as an arm of Irish economic policy. This story shows the DPC for what it is: a regulator that was captured from the beginning. The idea that the DPC might sue EPDB is astonishing and shocking. This comes as I read of Irish plans for a watered-down Northern Ireland Protocol. That would certainly please the UK government; but it risks subverting EU law. If the Irish government is bent on circumventing EU law, perhaps they should just get out of the EU.
- ommz 4y agoThe planet could use more thorns like Max Schrems & NOYB at large
- agd 4y ago"Meta prohibited from using personal data for advertisement"* *without consent It's perfectly acceptable under GDPR to do targeted advertising, as long as you have a user consent to it.
- IdiocyInAction 4y agoI'd wager that if you would put it to a referendum, the vast majority would prefer access to Meta's services for free to GDPR in Europe. Max Schrems isn't helping anyone.
- Nextgrid 4y agoI'd wager the vote would be way more nuanced if it came with a form where you can log in with Facebook and get a dump of all the data they captured on you, including what's been inferred by machine-learning models or stolen from other people's contact lists.
- sershe 4y ago"The decision would still allow Meta to use non-personal data (such as the content of a story) to personalize ads or to ask users for consent to ads via a 'yes/no' option. Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so." How is that supposed to work? FB is required to provide a service at a loss? If I were FB I'd work to actually make a yes/no contract - yes, or get lost. You can use EU social networks - oh wait, there aren't any! I guess in line with other EU decisions, EU citizens can switch to VKontakte :D
- Nextgrid 4y ago> FB is required to provide a service at a loss? Yes. Although how much of a loss it would be is debatable. Unless you upload lots of media, the costs of providing you the service top out at a few cents a month, so it can trivially be subsidised by even untargeted ads. > You can use EU social networks - oh wait, there aren't any! Maybe the long-term objective is that we actually get some social networks that are sustainable without misusing people's personal data?
- pornel 4y agoFB isn't required to operate in the EU, but if they want to, they're required to follow EU law. It's FB's problem to find a way to be profitable while following the law. It's normal that companies have to find a way to live with the cost of regulations, and if they can't, leave the market or go bust. For example, manufacturers are required to avoid use of harmful substances, and follow health and safety regulations, even though it'd be more profitable not to. Sweatshops and child labor would be more profitable, but these business models were rejected by the governments too.
- sershe 4y agoI was not asking about the letter of the law, that's obvious from TFA. I was asking about how it is fair in any way. It's kinda like a user comes into my store and I say "I can give you a haircut bundled with you giving me $30, yes/no", the user says "no, I'll only pay you $10", and EU says I am still required to give them the same haircut with the same quality. Ofc if I/FB choose to shut down or alter my service for everyone under these conditions, the other angle is that EU govt has decided that it knows better than mere proles who want to explicitly consent to the exchange. It's less like manufacturers avoiding harmful substances, and more like e.g. govt of China requiring Apple to alter Maps to display "correct" information under threat of a ban.
- sershe 4y agoAlso, overall, with the lively debate on buying gas from a guy cosplaying Sudetenland while working to dismantle nuclear, tantrums thrown over suggestions by the US that one should fund one's own defense, pillaging of foreign tech companies via the equivalent of a predatory traffic stop while regulating their own out of existence, I am starting to despise EU bureaucracy/governing institutions more and more. They are truly working to make it a dying continent.
- labrador 4y agoI like Facebook targeted ads. They're more interesting than generic untargeted ads. When I was shopping for an electric bike Facebook showed me ebikes of the type I wanted (cargo) for weeks. It's convenient. Yesterday I made a comment on a hat ad (I didn't think any man except Walter White should wear a pork pie hat) and now all my ads are for hats. I didn't realize their were so many kinds of men's hats. I don't feel like my privacy was violated
- jacooper 4y agoYou can just search for hats? Or voluntarily opt into getting tracked?
- labrador 4y ago> You can just search for hats I am not a hat wearer but now I might become one because I saw some cool hats I like. This was by accident because I wasn't in the market for hats. I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech which is why I make all my Facebook posts public. I don't ever want to kid myself that what I am staying stays private to only my friends and family. I have not encountered a downside to Facebook tracking, but maybe you can point one out. > Or voluntarily opt into getting tracked? Yes, this would be fine with me
- edgyquant 4y ago>I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech It doesn’t because tech companies like META and it won’t be fixed so long as your narrative remains the norm. We can fix this but not by letting these companies get away with it
- labrador 4y agoStopping Meta would only solve a small percentage of the problem. Hackers stealing our data is also a huge problem. My philosophy is to assume that I don't have privacy online or even offline due to facial recognition software. I've decided to accept it instead of fighting it like I used to.
- additall 4y agoWell, first of all, it's not "prohibited", it's "prohibited without a consent". Second, less personal data - less useful (relevant) ads, less revenue for Meta - less investment in R&D, less open source/research, more focus on "gathering contextual portrait". Which... won't end monopoly if that's what the general public on HN wants (hard to say what this whining is all about). Maybe more advertisers will go to Google instead (if the ruling is only about Meta).
- JoeyBananas 4y agoGetting fined 400 million over some trivial thing- that's behavior I'd expect from the mafia or maybe Genghis Khan. It's not like they killed anyone. They just resisted the stupid checkbox.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoHave any of these companies (meta, google, etc) actually had to PAY any of these fines? I hear about them getting the fines, but usually they can weasel out of them or just delay them indefinitely.