12 ms·

As 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

As 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 ago
  What'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    How do you see ads if you've tuned your browser settings?
    - no_time 4y ago
      1.) 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.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    What kind of upside do you see in this lack of targeting? (Asking unironically, too; different people value different aspects.)
    - no_time 4y ago
      https://www.socialcooling.com/ https://www.socialcooling.com/ This site explains better than I could.
      - nine_k 4y ago
        A great link, thanks!
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Targeting is manipulative and I don’t like being manipulated. Really all advertising is, but targeting more so.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  No different than the commercials on broadcast tv before targeting. Remember that in total no more diapers are sold regardless of these commercials, they just cause consumers to buy a specific brand. If advertising diapers no longer works, they’ll all just stop advertising and be better off.
- snehk 4y ago
  Well then openly ask users for consent. EU law does - in absolutely no way, shape or form - forbid targeted ads. What it does is it forces companies to specifically ask for consent before collecting data for such things and people must know that they're consenting to data collection specifically for ads.
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    Yeah, this is a good thing. At this point - consent is only opt-out, which doesn't go far enough, but it's an important step forward.
- buildsjets 4y ago
  Diluting the value of advertising is a great thing! If it is truly a waste of money to buy advertising, manufacturers won't spend on it, and then none of us will have to watch dumb adult diaper ads, or pay extra money for our adult diapers to cover the advertising budget.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    Ad spend was/is a big thing before individual targeting so why would it go away now?
- int_19h 4y ago
  The ad industry has succeeded in conditioning me to hate ads in general. So, let them waste money; hopefully the takeaway will be buying less ads in the future. If it means that some ad companies go out of business, that's even better.
- zirgs 4y ago
  I don't enjoy ads that advertise things that I've already bought AFTER I bought them.
- tpush 4y ago
  If you enjoy targeted advertisement you can freely consent to companies tracking you. This is fundamentally about consent and how it's given, not targeted advertisement per se.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Of course, companies can still target ads based on where the ad appears, so it would be silly for adult diaper companies to advertise on, say, blogs about children. Otherwise, it's just like every other form of advertising ever, yes. Rather than have ad companies know everything about me, I gladly choose more generalized ads.
- throwaway14356 4y ago
  but if you are shitting your pants every day, surely you want to see those diapers plastered all over your personal internet?
andsoitis 4y ago
There's really a parallel issue, which is private vs. public interests (companies vs. government / the people). You see it play out with European companies too, where they exploit populations where either there's lack of regulation or where they can bribe the officials. Profit, see what you can get away with. That's just on the legal front (like this case), not the moral or ethical front.
LelouBil 4y ago
I'm happy to be an EU citizen for all the great tech regulations that are actually passing here !
- rybosworld 4y ago
  On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry. Which is difficult if tech has been monopolised by US companies that break the laws, so they're addressing that for a start, as to level the playing field (both with GDPR and other regulations such as the Digital Markets Act).
    - rybosworld 4y ago
      By breaking laws implemented after the fact?
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        All laws are implemented after the fact.
  - LelouBil 4y ago
    I agree with you, investing in ethical tech is an important step. However if you look at what is happening today, with everyone having a google/instagram/etc account, and the power these companies have over the competition (because of unethical tactics) it is not feasible to actually compete with them. Legislation is needed to make *everyone* in the tech industry that operates in europe at the same (ethical) level. This may not be directly applicable to the linked article, but I'm mainly thinking of the DMA and DSA which will go into effect in a couple of months.
neotrope 4y ago
Equally, as a US citizen and someone who used to work in the ad tech industry, anti-user products (e.g., surveillance capitalism) needs to die.
29athrowaway 4y ago
[flagged]
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  Even if they do it just to annoy Facebook, that might be in line with the popular opinion among their voters.
- Dumbdo 4y ago
  I'll bait, even though this is quite obvious a low-effort comment without any basis. If you would have read the article, you could have noted the following: > Max Schrems: "The penalty will go to Ireland - the State that has taken Meta's side and delayed enforcement for more than four years. This case will likely be appealed by Meta, leading to more costs for noyb." So: No, the money does not go to the ominous "EU leadership", but rather to Ireland, the country which already profits from being a tax and law heaven for Meta and other companies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
- PoignardAzur 4y ago
  > The EU leadership is corrupt as fuck. That's a hell of a claim to just casually throw out.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Even if there was a bit of truth to this, it's not like the US is any better.
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  > They don't care about protecting citizens, they want $500m fines every month. The EU leadership is corrupt as fuck. The EU don't get the fine money. It goes to the Irish state. The same Irish state whose DPA has been trying to shield Meta through all this.

dcgudeman 4y ago

[flagged]

Lio 4y ago
What'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 ago
I 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 ago
  How do you see ads if you've tuned your browser settings?
  - no_time 4y ago
    1.) 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.
- nine_k 4y ago
  What kind of upside do you see in this lack of targeting? (Asking unironically, too; different people value different aspects.)
  - no_time 4y ago
    https://www.socialcooling.com/ https://www.socialcooling.com/ This site explains better than I could.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      A great link, thanks!
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Targeting is manipulative and I don’t like being manipulated. Really all advertising is, but targeting more so.
tinus_hn 4y ago
No different than the commercials on broadcast tv before targeting. Remember that in total no more diapers are sold regardless of these commercials, they just cause consumers to buy a specific brand. If advertising diapers no longer works, they’ll all just stop advertising and be better off.
snehk 4y ago
Well then openly ask users for consent. EU law does - in absolutely no way, shape or form - forbid targeted ads. What it does is it forces companies to specifically ask for consent before collecting data for such things and people must know that they're consenting to data collection specifically for ads.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  Yeah, this is a good thing. At this point - consent is only opt-out, which doesn't go far enough, but it's an important step forward.
buildsjets 4y ago
Diluting the value of advertising is a great thing! If it is truly a waste of money to buy advertising, manufacturers won't spend on it, and then none of us will have to watch dumb adult diaper ads, or pay extra money for our adult diapers to cover the advertising budget.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  Ad spend was/is a big thing before individual targeting so why would it go away now?
int_19h 4y ago
The ad industry has succeeded in conditioning me to hate ads in general. So, let them waste money; hopefully the takeaway will be buying less ads in the future. If it means that some ad companies go out of business, that's even better.
zirgs 4y ago
I don't enjoy ads that advertise things that I've already bought AFTER I bought them.
tpush 4y ago
If you enjoy targeted advertisement you can freely consent to companies tracking you. This is fundamentally about consent and how it's given, not targeted advertisement per se.
pwinnski 4y ago
Of course, companies can still target ads based on where the ad appears, so it would be silly for adult diaper companies to advertise on, say, blogs about children. Otherwise, it's just like every other form of advertising ever, yes. Rather than have ad companies know everything about me, I gladly choose more generalized ads.
throwaway14356 4y ago
but if you are shitting your pants every day, surely you want to see those diapers plastered all over your personal internet?

andsoitis 4y ago

There's really a parallel issue, which is private vs. public interests (companies vs. government / the people). You see it play out with European companies too, where they exploit populations where either there's lack of regulation or where they can bribe the officials. Profit, see what you can get away with. That's just on the legal front (like this case), not the moral or ethical front.

LelouBil 4y ago

I'm happy to be an EU citizen for all the great tech regulations that are actually passing here !

rybosworld 4y ago
On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to avoid addressing Europe's lack of it's own tech industry. If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry. Which is difficult if tech has been monopolised by US companies that break the laws, so they're addressing that for a start, as to level the playing field (both with GDPR and other regulations such as the Digital Markets Act).
  - rybosworld 4y ago
    By breaking laws implemented after the fact?
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      All laws are implemented after the fact.
- LelouBil 4y ago
  I agree with you, investing in ethical tech is an important step. However if you look at what is happening today, with everyone having a google/instagram/etc account, and the power these companies have over the competition (because of unethical tactics) it is not feasible to actually compete with them. Legislation is needed to make *everyone* in the tech industry that operates in europe at the same (ethical) level. This may not be directly applicable to the linked article, but I'm mainly thinking of the DMA and DSA which will go into effect in a couple of months.

neotrope 4y ago

Equally, as a US citizen and someone who used to work in the ad tech industry, anti-user products (e.g., surveillance capitalism) needs to die.

29athrowaway 4y ago

[flagged]

fxtentacle 4y ago
Even if they do it just to annoy Facebook, that might be in line with the popular opinion among their voters.
Dumbdo 4y ago
I'll bait, even though this is quite obvious a low-effort comment without any basis. If you would have read the article, you could have noted the following: > Max Schrems: "The penalty will go to Ireland - the State that has taken Meta's side and delayed enforcement for more than four years. This case will likely be appealed by Meta, leading to more costs for noyb." So: No, the money does not go to the ominous "EU leadership", but rather to Ireland, the country which already profits from being a tax and law heaven for Meta and other companies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
PoignardAzur 4y ago
> The EU leadership is corrupt as fuck. That's a hell of a claim to just casually throw out.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Even if there was a bit of truth to this, it's not like the US is any better.
kcartlidge 4y ago
> They don't care about protecting citizens, they want $500m fines every month. The EU leadership is corrupt as fuck. The EU don't get the fine money. It goes to the Irish state. The same Irish state whose DPA has been trying to shield Meta through all this.