5 ms·

The assumption is that Facebook doesn't want to allow non-targeted ads as they don't make enough money. If they could force you to pay them or accept the target

The assumption is that Facebook doesn't want to allow non-targeted ads as they don't make enough money. If they could force you to pay them or accept the target ads, (either of which would make them more money than non-targeted ads) , then they probably would.

hfkwer 3y ago
If their business model depends on breaking the law, maybe it's not a viable one.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  I don't think their business model does depend on breaking the law. They could stop operating in the EU and still make a profit, IIRC.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    Any social media platform that stops operating in the EU is leaving a void for competitors to take over the EU market. Once said competitor takes over the EU market, they would be large enough to pose a serious threat to Facebook in other markets.
- achenet 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure drug cartels, and more generally organized criminal groups, are pretty viable financially, at least short term. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > viable […] short term. That's a nice oxymoron you got there.
  - hfkwer 3y ago
    Is this a joke...? I think there would be fewer candidates for the CEO of FB if they risked being shot down by the DEA when they appear in public. Regardless, your comment isn't really relevant. I'm replying to the idea that FB has to break the law or they go bankrupt. Well, in that case, they should just go bankrupt. We shouldn't change the law to accommodate them.
littlestymaar 3y ago
> as they don't make enough money. First rule of capitalism: nothing ever makes enough money.
dspillett 3y ago
> as they don't make enough money Commercial entities like facebook do not care for “enough money”. They want as much money as possible. Even if knowing everything about me, my family & friends, job & colleagues, etc. only gains 0.01% more (after accounting for the cost of the stalking infrastructure), they will do what is required to get that 0.01%. Sometimes morality is allowed to get in the way, but the standard of moral core of an organisation tends towards the lowest common denominators within that organisation so things have to be pretty damned disgusting, and fairly universally considered so, before a commercial entity won't do them (or at least take a blind eye to them) in order to make another 0.01%.

hfkwer 3y ago

If their business model depends on breaking the law, maybe it's not a viable one.

sebzim4500 3y ago
I don't think their business model does depend on breaking the law. They could stop operating in the EU and still make a profit, IIRC.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  Any social media platform that stops operating in the EU is leaving a void for competitors to take over the EU market. Once said competitor takes over the EU market, they would be large enough to pose a serious threat to Facebook in other markets.
achenet 3y ago
I'm pretty sure drug cartels, and more generally organized criminal groups, are pretty viable financially, at least short term. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > viable […] short term. That's a nice oxymoron you got there.
- hfkwer 3y ago
  Is this a joke...? I think there would be fewer candidates for the CEO of FB if they risked being shot down by the DEA when they appear in public. Regardless, your comment isn't really relevant. I'm replying to the idea that FB has to break the law or they go bankrupt. Well, in that case, they should just go bankrupt. We shouldn't change the law to accommodate them.

littlestymaar 3y ago

> as they don't make enough money. First rule of capitalism: nothing ever makes enough money.

dspillett 3y ago

> as they don't make enough money Commercial entities like facebook do not care for “enough money”. They want as much money as possible. Even if knowing everything about me, my family & friends, job & colleagues, etc. only gains 0.01% more (after accounting for the cost of the stalking infrastructure), they will do what is required to get that 0.01%. Sometimes morality is allowed to get in the way, but the standard of moral core of an organisation tends towards the lowest common denominators within that organisation so things have to be pretty damned disgusting, and fairly universally considered so, before a commercial entity won't do them (or at least take a blind eye to them) in order to make another 0.01%.