3 ms·

It's not illegal, they just need to ask their users if it's ok. If there's nothing wrong with this practice, why would the users say no?

whimsicalism 4y ago
If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Mandating companies to serve users who provide no value at all is an example of the regulatory requirements that spill down to hurting regular consumers and workers in Europe. You can see this across all sorts of fields, youth unemployment in Europe (for example) is a mess.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Courts so far seem to mostly have decided that if you are clear and upfront, you can offer "track me" and "I’ll pay you not to track me" as the two options. Very common in Germany.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Not in this decision they did not. Meta is required to provide service even if you don't agree to the transaction.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      Incorrect. They are free to charge for the service. They are not free to use personal data without consent.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. That is more or less correct, although some newspapers in Europe are taking the gamble on that and there might be grounds for a middle-ground decision and amendment of the GDPR down the line. > who provide no value at all Disagreed, those users still provide value - not only can you still advertise to them based on public information (and users put out a lot of it by liking/following certain content) but they still strengthen the network effect of the product.
  - ectopod 4y ago
    The users also provide all of the content.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Providing ads based on who you like and follow still falls under this GDPR decision. It is considered personal data under GDPR. Maybe whether FB serves these users and the cost-benefit analysis of the value add should be up to FB, rather than mandated by the government.
- burkaman 4y ago
  I don't think you're understanding it correctly, Meta is still free to serve normal contextual ads to all users so they can make money. There are many other sustainable business models they could try out if they aren't able to get their customers to pay for that sort of ad. They are not mandated to provide any kind of service to anyone.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Seems pretty blatantly a mandate to continue providing service regardless of users' actions. Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me.
    - rpastuszak 4y ago
      > Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me. This is where the line between contextual and behavioural is blurry. In theory, behavioural == who I am, and contextual == where I am/what I am reading. Shortly after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, we started getting companies selling "ethical" contextual targeting SDKs. The issue was that the "context" was a result of a ML model running on your device and using your location, accelerometer, magnetometer readings (etc...) to define a real-time profile of the user, e.g. "exercising at the <gym name>", "they're having coffee at <restaurant name>".
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Meta is free to charge for the service. They are not free to require tracking for use of the service.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Facebook is absolutely free to charge everyone. But yes certain business models (like Facebook’s apparently) are not legal under the GDPR. That’s the point.
- rpastuszak 4y ago
  > If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Nope, that's not correct. Edit: it is correct. Rarely I'm so happy to be wrong.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Explain this sentence if my understanding is incorrect.
    - rpastuszak 4y ago
      You're right, thanks for responding! I've updated my comment.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> why would the users say no? One can agree with the measure and disagree with its deployment. Here, a quasi-judicial body with opaquely-appointed members created a rule ex post facto. It’s a good opinion. But that sort of unpredictability obviously has a cost. (Agencies in America face similar criticism.)
- burkaman 4y ago
  I guess I don't understand the unpredictability argument. Everything that I've read since GDPR passed 4+ years ago has predicted that Facebook's data harvesting would be illegal. It was a very straightforward and predictable consequence of the law.
  - M2Ys4U 4y ago
    Indeed, this case was started on the day the GDPR came in to force.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Everything that I've read since GDPR passed 4+ years ago has predicted that Facebook's data harvesting would be illegal The Irish DPA disagreed. We can write that off as biased, but that’s sort of the point. Each member DPA has its pet biases, and predicting how they’ll act and how those actions amalgamate at the EDPS is nontrivial. That’s a cost of doing business in Europe that derived from GDPR’s bureaucratic design, not from its regulatory aims.

whimsicalism 4y ago

If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Mandating companies to serve users who provide no value at all is an example of the regulatory requirements that spill down to hurting regular consumers and workers in Europe. You can see this across all sorts of fields, youth unemployment in Europe (for example) is a mess.

Semaphor 4y ago
Courts so far seem to mostly have decided that if you are clear and upfront, you can offer "track me" and "I’ll pay you not to track me" as the two options. Very common in Germany.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Not in this decision they did not. Meta is required to provide service even if you don't agree to the transaction.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Incorrect. They are free to charge for the service. They are not free to use personal data without consent.
Nextgrid 4y ago
> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. That is more or less correct, although some newspapers in Europe are taking the gamble on that and there might be grounds for a middle-ground decision and amendment of the GDPR down the line. > who provide no value at all Disagreed, those users still provide value - not only can you still advertise to them based on public information (and users put out a lot of it by liking/following certain content) but they still strengthen the network effect of the product.
- ectopod 4y ago
  The users also provide all of the content.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Providing ads based on who you like and follow still falls under this GDPR decision. It is considered personal data under GDPR. Maybe whether FB serves these users and the cost-benefit analysis of the value add should be up to FB, rather than mandated by the government.
burkaman 4y ago
I don't think you're understanding it correctly, Meta is still free to serve normal contextual ads to all users so they can make money. There are many other sustainable business models they could try out if they aren't able to get their customers to pay for that sort of ad. They are not mandated to provide any kind of service to anyone.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Seems pretty blatantly a mandate to continue providing service regardless of users' actions. Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me.
  - rpastuszak 4y ago
    > Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me. This is where the line between contextual and behavioural is blurry. In theory, behavioural == who I am, and contextual == where I am/what I am reading. Shortly after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, we started getting companies selling "ethical" contextual targeting SDKs. The issue was that the "context" was a result of a ML model running on your device and using your location, accelerometer, magnetometer readings (etc...) to define a real-time profile of the user, e.g. "exercising at the <gym name>", "they're having coffee at <restaurant name>".
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Meta is free to charge for the service. They are not free to require tracking for use of the service.
CogitoCogito 4y ago
> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Facebook is absolutely free to charge everyone. But yes certain business models (like Facebook’s apparently) are not legal under the GDPR. That’s the point.
rpastuszak 4y ago
> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it. Nope, that's not correct. Edit: it is correct. Rarely I'm so happy to be wrong.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so. Explain this sentence if my understanding is incorrect.
  - rpastuszak 4y ago
    You're right, thanks for responding! I've updated my comment.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> why would the users say no? One can agree with the measure and disagree with its deployment. Here, a quasi-judicial body with opaquely-appointed members created a rule ex post facto. It’s a good opinion. But that sort of unpredictability obviously has a cost. (Agencies in America face similar criticism.)

burkaman 4y ago
I guess I don't understand the unpredictability argument. Everything that I've read since GDPR passed 4+ years ago has predicted that Facebook's data harvesting would be illegal. It was a very straightforward and predictable consequence of the law.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  Indeed, this case was started on the day the GDPR came in to force.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Everything that I've read since GDPR passed 4+ years ago has predicted that Facebook's data harvesting would be illegal The Irish DPA disagreed. We can write that off as biased, but that’s sort of the point. Each member DPA has its pet biases, and predicting how they’ll act and how those actions amalgamate at the EDPS is nontrivial. That’s a cost of doing business in Europe that derived from GDPR’s bureaucratic design, not from its regulatory aims.