4 ms·

> requires continuous free-riding off of the US across a wide swath of sectors including healthcare and tech There's an element of that. However as this rulin

> requires continuous free-riding off of the US across a wide swath of sectors including healthcare and tech There's an element of that. However as this ruling shows (and some of us already realise) the opposite is true too. By illegally profiting off EU data and people, and siphoning all those profits away from the member states, these companies are actually free-riding off the EU population and economy. Hopefully these revenue models really do become untenable. Maybe then they'll be replaced with more honest business models. Which, incidentally, can include opting in to ads based on personal data if that is what people knowingly choose. Edit: re the lack of a predictable regulatory landscape in Europe: This has been shared law for four years across the EU (which I agree is not Europe but the EU is the subject of TFA). It was also heavily trailered prior to that. Or, in simpler terms, it was predictable. And Meta knew this, which was why they tried to override the law with contractual terms.

mnw21cam 4y ago
> Maybe then they'll be replaced with more honest business models. Which, incidentally, can include opting in to ads based on personal data if that is what people knowingly choose. The GDPR requires that consent to use of personal data for other purposes must not affect the user experience for the main product. Therefore, the company must offer the main product without reference to any opting in to personalised ads. This effectively sets the monetary value of opting in to zero at the user/company interface. An organisation could try and fund their operation through opt-ins, because the monetary value of opt-ins is still positive at the advertiser/company interface. However that fact encourages the company to use nefarious tactics on the users, which is clearly what has happened in this particular case. I'd like to see this incentive die, but I think that all the time this valuation remains positive there will be companies that try it on. I get frustrated at the number of apps and web sites that place opt-in as a paywall to access. It's outrageously and explicitly illegal, but enforcement is lacking.

mnw21cam 4y ago

> Maybe then they'll be replaced with more honest business models. Which, incidentally, can include opting in to ads based on personal data if that is what people knowingly choose. The GDPR requires that consent to use of personal data for other purposes must not affect the user experience for the main product. Therefore, the company must offer the main product without reference to any opting in to personalised ads. This effectively sets the monetary value of opting in to zero at the user/company interface. An organisation could try and fund their operation through opt-ins, because the monetary value of opt-ins is still positive at the advertiser/company interface. However that fact encourages the company to use nefarious tactics on the users, which is clearly what has happened in this particular case. I'd like to see this incentive die, but I think that all the time this valuation remains positive there will be companies that try it on. I get frustrated at the number of apps and web sites that place opt-in as a paywall to access. It's outrageously and explicitly illegal, but enforcement is lacking.