12 ms·

Norwegian ban on Meta behavioral advertising extended to entire EU

449 points by aleksanb 3y ago

Someone 3y ago
Nitpick: the title if this article currently is “Norwegian ban on Meta behavioral advertising extended to entire EU” Either “Entire” shouldn’t be there, as Norway isn’t in the EU, or “EU” should be “European Economic Area” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area). My Norwegian is almost nonexistent, but I think it’s the latter. It makes more sense to my understanding of law (why else would a Norwegian claim extend to EU countries?) and the Norwegian title mentions “EU/EØS”, and that matches the Norwegian name of that Wikipedia page (https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EØS https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EØS) If so, it also would apply to Iceland and Liechtenstein.
- mstade 3y ago
  I'm not norwegian but I can read norwegian fairly well and the article says the European Data Protection Board has decided that the norwegian ban should be made permanent, and expanded to apply to all of the EU and EEA. It's a little light on detail, but that's the gist of it anyway.
- monosphere 3y ago
  You're quite right. "extended to entire EU/EEA" would be more correct.
- bosse 3y ago
  Yeah, the article refers to EU/EØS which includes the non-EU members of the EEA, of which some union regulations may apply and be ratified into national law, like on food safety, energy markets or data privacy, while others can be vetoed and do not apply, like on fishing where Norway wants to control quotas in its own waters. Nevertheless, in cases where EEA countries are part of union law, decisions can be appealed to EU courts, and decisions there will apply to the whole area. At least I think that’s how it works, it’s a bit messy at times.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- finnjohnsen2 3y ago
  I agree it's a bit sloppy but understandable (for me) since legislation/directives is where we (Norway) is most aligned with the EU. As adapting EU directives is a part of the EEA/EØS deal (with some exceptions). As for other central EU features like open market, currency, sovereignty (particularly naval), freedom of movement, we are on the outside of the union and I wouldn't sloppily consider or phrase us an EU country.
exabrial 3y ago
If i travel to the eu as an American does that mean it’s illegal to track me while present in their territory? Would I be able to sue them and which country would be most favorable for the largest payout if so? I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway447 3y ago
  I am not a lawyer. "If i travel to the eu as an American does that mean it’s illegal to track me while present in their territory?" Yes. "Would I be able to sue them" You can sue any time but only makes sense if meta does something illegal. "and which country would be most favorable for the largest payout if so?" If Meta breaks the EU law you would likely have to sue in the country were you were present. Could also be that you have to sue Meta in an EU country were they have an office. (Ireland? Luxembourg? Dunno). "I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol)." This is a great idea, unfortunately there are no punitive damages in most EU countries. Your payment would be tiny.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    That is disappointing. What is the motivation for them to actually obey the law?
    - throwaway447 3y ago
      Well, they EU can sue too and if the government sues you it is a different game and can get expensive. Fines for breaking EU Competition Law Overall limit: The fine is limited to 10% of the overall annual turnover of the company. Annual turnover of Meta?
    - SargeDebian 3y ago
      Not sure if that's a serious question and you actually consider lawsuits by private individuals the only functioning method of law enforcement, but: enforcement by governments or regulators is a thing, and on top of that anyone can still sue Meta, they're just not going to get rich doing so.
Daz1 3y ago
[flagged]
- PostOnce 3y ago
  Nobody is opposed to relevant ads on TV (I mean, not any more than they're opposed to ads in general). it's the means by which they make them relevant. No one would be cool if Facebook sent agents to your home each night to rifle through your drawers to learn about you and "tailor ads to you and make them more relevant". That's the problem, the data-collecting and spying.
  - ninjin 3y ago
    Indeed, "opposed to relevant ads" is just a rhetorical trick or misunderstanding of the "opposing" position, akin to: "murdering babies" for abortion, "allowing criminals to go free" for maintaining privacy standards, "artists not getting paid" for opposing "modern" copyright, etc. The truth of the matter is that many positions are far more nuanced and complex; all in shades of grey.
    - mynameisash 3y ago
      Poisoning the well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
  - throw101010 3y ago
    And the potential use of this data by governments around the world for less innocuous purposes than "showing relevant ads". It is not too surprising that companies who can profit from it push the data collection as far as they can. It is more surprising/troubling how the people in general seem to either have completely capitulated due to the generalization of the data collection... or fail to understand the implications it can have. Thankfully some people in EU courts still think that privacy is a right.
    - corbezzoli 3y ago
runesoerensen 3y ago
For people who don't read Norwegian, here's the Norwegian Data Protection Authority's previous post on this matter (which the EDPB has now sided with Norway on) in English: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/meta-case-brought-to-the-european-level/ https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/me... More details on the temporary ban: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/temporary-ban-of-behavioural-advertising-on-facebook-and-instagram/ https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/te...
fsckboy 3y ago
scandinavians are no different from other people, and changing the rules of advertising will not diminish Norwegian companies from wanting to advertise their goods. back in the 80's Norway had a ban on cigarette advertising, so Marlboro launched a clothing/lifestyle brand, blue jeans and other cowboy style clothes. With their competitors hobbled by the advertising ban, perhaps that was even more effective.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  >scandinavians are no different from other people Household consumption as a % of GDP in Norway is 30% compared to 68% in the US. The Norwegian public sector produces 70% of Norway's GDP. You're underestimating to what extent these policies reflect real differences in how countries are run. In the good old USA Facebook et al are allowed to do what they do because people keeping those credit cards busy is what keeps the economy up. Doesn't work that way in Norway and a decent chunk of Europe.
  - tschwimmer 3y ago
    70% seemed insanely high to me and so I checked this. It seems like the IMF has a similar (but not exact stat) that you quoted as 48%: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/NOR?zoom=NOR&highlight=NOR https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/NOR?zoom=NOR... USA is 42% on the same measure.
    - Barrin92 3y ago
      Government expenditure is a very different metric as that's just what the state spends, not how it generates its income. Which in theory could be almost entirely by the private sector. Here's the US state department quoting the relevant reports (https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-investment-climate-statements/norway/ https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-investment-climate-statem...) "The public sector accounts for nearly 66 percent of GDP. The Norwegian government is the largest owner in Norway, with ownership stakes in a range of key sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, finance, and communications)"[...]
  - 3y ago
unsubstantiated 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bfrog 3y ago
I wish the US would get its act together on stuff like this but it’s too busy getting campaign funds from such schemes
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  It's not just that; the US just doesn't believe much in regulating businesses, even if they're demonstrably harming society. They really believe "The Invisible Hand" will make everything better in the end.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > the US just doesn't believe much in regulating businesses The US has tons of strange regulations like banning car manufacturers from selling cars themselves without a middleman or dictating what kind of showerheads are allowed to be sold.
    - mozman 3y ago
      Fun fact: most showerheads can easily be modified to allow maximum water flow rates. 30 seconds and a pair of pliers is often all it takes.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      The US is nothing if not inconsistent. The car-selling thing is due to state laws, not federal, and really the result of corruption: the dealerships are politically connected. The showerhead thing is due to environmentalism, so the US does sometimes make regulations with that impetus. There's no environmental aspect to banning targeted advertisements; it's purely social.
      - layer8 3y ago
        > There's no environmental aspect to banning targeted advertisements; it's purely social. Arguably, the process of targeted advertisements consumes more power.
radium3d 3y ago
I don't think it's the ads people need to be worried about. It's pages, groups and their "users" posts manipulating people. News flash: a majority aren't even real human users.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  Why not both?
  - radium3d 3y ago
    Ads are less worrisome because you know they're an ad because they are marked with a icon usually. It's the fake posts that are tricking people into beliefs without them even realizing that it's propaganda/ads
- omarfarooq 3y ago
  Source that dissects this?
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I always doubt anyone who sees 'bots' everywhere they go, but I agree with them on the groups part. https://old.reddit.com/r/ShitMomGroupsSay/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ShitMomGroupsSay/ regularly has some good examples. Ironically, I've posted there a couple of times in a way that (barely) went against their own groupthink and got downvoted like crazy.
    - omarfarooq 3y ago
      I wonder how much of these are powered by GPT.
  - radium3d 3y ago
    There are some articles regarding it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/05/google-and-facebook-urged-by-eu-to-label-ai-generated-content https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/05/google-an... My personal theory is that we have been mingling with AI generated content long before Chat GPT was revealed to the public, at least in the last 10-15 years. And that Chat GPT was not the first on the block manipulating people with the technology. I just think this based on the fact that the NSA was spying on people long before whistle blowers revealed it, same has to go for AI manipulation by various government agencies and non government "bad actors". We may get confirmation of this within the next 10-15 years if someone blows a whistle.
make_it_sure 3y ago
[flagged]
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  US companies need to pay VAT when they sell to EU customers and EU companies don't pay VAT when they sell to US customers, so that can't be the reason.
  - NorwegianDude 3y ago
    There is sales tax for US too, so where you are located does not really mater. Companies outside US pays sales tax in the US.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gherkinnn 3y ago
  If those startups built anything that goes against GDPR then good riddance.
throwaway237289 3y ago
[flagged]
- yowzadave 3y ago
  > You teach those filthy capitalists while you sit on a sovereign fund of oil wealth. Not sure how this is supposed to be a gotcha—a sovereign wealth fund is by definition socialistic?
  - pb7 3y ago
    The point is they never learned how to create any value because they’re sitting on a goldmine.
  - okr 3y ago
    Dirty oil money made you filthy rich, while destroying the environment. And from that pedastal you judge about other filthy capitalists. It is all a joke. (But, maybe you are right, hackernews is full of people saturated on a pedestal and judging from there with a socialistic mindset. Well, it is a virus, that takes on young people with yet underdeveloped brains. ;)
- seydor 3y ago
  Banning facebook would be a great thing for local replacements because it's relatively easy to replicate and will re-create some online advertising business. Once the local startups take off there will be pressure to dismantle business-hostile aspects of gdpr to sustain it. EU completely submitted to american online superiority, but as china shows, protectionism can fix that.
neontomo 3y ago
Context from the Norwegian article: Meta promised to ask users whether they want to opt-in, but they never did, so now they are banning these behaviours until they have come up with a better way of handling this. Furthermore, Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal.
- xp84 3y ago
  > Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal. I really don't get this attitude. I 100% endorse everyone's right to uninstall every Meta app and never use them, and to block their on-page trackers on third-party websites with an adblocker, all that. But the notion that there should be some sort of EU-protected "Right To Use Facebook For Free"... nah. Using the apps inherently shares data with the company whose servers you're using. Don't like it, that's fine, there's only one correct recourse: Don't use it. Also, if Facebook's users were all paying for it (and all its competitors), there would be no advertising on it, and incentives in social media would be aligned much better. The government which requires companies to provide their service "for free" would be actively working against that better world by pushing the ad-supported model, which they clearly hate, as the only one.
  - stubish 3y ago
    What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling your vote or selling yourself into slavery or accepting licenses in conflict with rights granted by local consumer laws. Some things we don't want assigned a value that can be traded. The EU has decided that the right to privacy includes not being tracked on the Internet, and any 'you can only use this if you give up your right or pay money' is not going to be allowed, because it ends up destroying that right for many.
    - pests 3y ago
      But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?
asylteltine 3y ago
[dead]
randomdev3 3y ago
They could just show dumb ads and it might even work better. It's not so hard, you look at the page /content and get the ad category. I've had Google and Meta account for more than 10 years and all ads are completely irrelevant. I go to r/programming on new browser and they show me ads that actually might have something interesting.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  The whole adtech vs. hand-crafted ad systems is a big question for small site owners who can't be asked to sell their own ad space etc. But Meta is in a very special position. They have enough user data to pinpoint ads without having to trade data with anyone. They are large enough that they can easily manage all their ad sales in-house. They if anyone should be interested in really strict regulation. Because if everyone just has to use the data they have in house for good reason (Facebook does have my age, city, interests etc and I accept that!) then facebook has an extreme advantage in advertising.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    > The whole adtech vs. hand-crafted ad systems is a big question for small site owners who can't be asked to sell their own ad space etc. Could the ad networks scan the site instead and use the content on the pages to determine likely target audiences? You could still do ad networks, and target audience, based on the site that they are currently on. The current version of adtech is pretty damaging to society as a whole and it's getting increasingly worse. Apparently nothing online or content related is able to generate enough revenue to keep itself afloat without ads. Manufactures of TVs and cars are collecting and selling data to increase profit, but are themselves buying ads, making it akin to a pyramid scheme. Maybe we need to start taking a look at the industries that are heavily depending on selling ad space to survive and question if they need to exist, or should be transformed into actual products.
    - alkonaut 3y ago
      > Could the ad networks scan the site instead and use the content on the pages to determine likely target audiences? You could still do ad networks, and target audience, based on the site that they are currently on. Yes. But it simply doesn't work as well for most cases as targeting based on what you watched on netflix yesterday, googled last tuesday, and what products you had in your shopping basked last year but removed before you checked out.
personomas 3y ago
Totally insanity.
rambambram 3y ago
I translated this text to English and what I don't understand is they talk about the Norwegian Data Protection Authority, quickly say something about European Privacy Council, and then go on telling: > "The Norwegian Privacy Council's decision is an instruction to the Irish Data Protection Authority to place a permanent ban on Meta's European head office in Ireland. Once this has happened, the ban will come into effect." Either Norway is banning something on their own, or they follow EU regulations, but I don't think a 'Norwegian ban gets extended to here and there'. I have the feeling stuff gets mixed up a little here.
- Joeri 3y ago
  The holding company for Meta in the EU is located in Ireland because the double Irish system of accounting allowed them to avoid paying corporate taxes in the EU. (Not sure if this is still the case, I think they now always have to pay the minimum 13% rate.) I think any kind of enforcement against Meta has to go through Ireland because of that. The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action.
  - rambambram 3y ago
    > The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action. I know, that's why the order of things mentioned in the article feels out of line.
- rusk 3y ago
  My guess is they implemented EU policy (all states implement their owns laws to satisfy the various EU treaties) and they have notified the Irish DPC of their findings; and naturally expect Ireland to follow suit …
dadadatamen 3y ago
behavioral marketing is about more than making money. you are nudging millions and billions of people in certain directions. It has completely changed majorities of brackets of the current and last generation. laws will not be enough to stop this
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Laws may not be enough but it would be a good start at least. If that doesn’t work we’ll try something else.
  - dadadatamen 3y ago
    my bad for not elaborating. we have always been dependant on whistleblowers and ethical hackers and now, for just a few years, we are at the tipping point where they are the last line of defence. Corruption has almost irreversibly disabled the playing field on which the civil society can act as a red team to corporate visions and strategies. Something else is always in attempt and laws are an absolute must but whether either of the many measures work, lies in the hands of whistleblowers and hackers.
janandonly 3y ago
Maybe this makes my ultimate dream come one step closer: paying for what I use (I still like to log into Instagram about once a month), without being tracked at all, and without having to watch any advertising at all.
merdaverse 3y ago
> The Norwegian Privacy Council's decision is an instruction to the Irish Data Protection Authority to place a permanent ban on Meta's European head office in Ireland Isn't this going to be a problem? The Irish DPA has been known to be in bed with big tech in the past, considering Ireland's entire economy is based around being a tax haven for Big Tech, and importing tech workers with the highest EU salaries taxed at 52% for the highest bracket https://web.archive.org/web/20230609051152/https://www.irishtimes.com/technology/2023/06/01/why-did-the-irish-data-regulator-not-want-to-fine-meta/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230609051152/https://www.irish...

449 points by aleksanb 3y ago

Nitpick: the title if this article currently is “Norwegian ban on Meta behavioral advertising extended to entire EU” Either “Entire” shouldn’t be there, as Norway isn’t in the EU, or “EU” should be “European Economic Area” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area). My Norwegian is almost nonexistent, but I think it’s the latter. It makes more sense to my understanding of law (why else would a Norwegian claim extend to EU countries?) and the Norwegian title mentions “EU/EØS”, and that matches the Norwegian name of that Wikipedia page (https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EØS https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EØS) If so, it also would apply to Iceland and Liechtenstein.

mstade 3y ago
I'm not norwegian but I can read norwegian fairly well and the article says the European Data Protection Board has decided that the norwegian ban should be made permanent, and expanded to apply to all of the EU and EEA. It's a little light on detail, but that's the gist of it anyway.
monosphere 3y ago
You're quite right. "extended to entire EU/EEA" would be more correct.
bosse 3y ago
Yeah, the article refers to EU/EØS which includes the non-EU members of the EEA, of which some union regulations may apply and be ratified into national law, like on food safety, energy markets or data privacy, while others can be vetoed and do not apply, like on fishing where Norway wants to control quotas in its own waters. Nevertheless, in cases where EEA countries are part of union law, decisions can be appealed to EU courts, and decisions there will apply to the whole area. At least I think that’s how it works, it’s a bit messy at times.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
finnjohnsen2 3y ago
I agree it's a bit sloppy but understandable (for me) since legislation/directives is where we (Norway) is most aligned with the EU. As adapting EU directives is a part of the EEA/EØS deal (with some exceptions). As for other central EU features like open market, currency, sovereignty (particularly naval), freedom of movement, we are on the outside of the union and I wouldn't sloppily consider or phrase us an EU country.

exabrial 3y ago

If i travel to the eu as an American does that mean it’s illegal to track me while present in their territory? Would I be able to sue them and which country would be most favorable for the largest payout if so? I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway447 3y ago
I am not a lawyer. "If i travel to the eu as an American does that mean it’s illegal to track me while present in their territory?" Yes. "Would I be able to sue them" You can sue any time but only makes sense if meta does something illegal. "and which country would be most favorable for the largest payout if so?" If Meta breaks the EU law you would likely have to sue in the country were you were present. Could also be that you have to sue Meta in an EU country were they have an office. (Ireland? Luxembourg? Dunno). "I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol)." This is a great idea, unfortunately there are no punitive damages in most EU countries. Your payment would be tiny.
- exabrial 3y ago
  That is disappointing. What is the motivation for them to actually obey the law?
  - throwaway447 3y ago
    Well, they EU can sue too and if the government sues you it is a different game and can get expensive. Fines for breaking EU Competition Law Overall limit: The fine is limited to 10% of the overall annual turnover of the company. Annual turnover of Meta?
  - SargeDebian 3y ago
    Not sure if that's a serious question and you actually consider lawsuits by private individuals the only functioning method of law enforcement, but: enforcement by governments or regulators is a thing, and on top of that anyone can still sue Meta, they're just not going to get rich doing so.

Daz1 3y ago

[flagged]

PostOnce 3y ago
Nobody is opposed to relevant ads on TV (I mean, not any more than they're opposed to ads in general). it's the means by which they make them relevant. No one would be cool if Facebook sent agents to your home each night to rifle through your drawers to learn about you and "tailor ads to you and make them more relevant". That's the problem, the data-collecting and spying.
- ninjin 3y ago
  Indeed, "opposed to relevant ads" is just a rhetorical trick or misunderstanding of the "opposing" position, akin to: "murdering babies" for abortion, "allowing criminals to go free" for maintaining privacy standards, "artists not getting paid" for opposing "modern" copyright, etc. The truth of the matter is that many positions are far more nuanced and complex; all in shades of grey.
  - mynameisash 3y ago
    Poisoning the well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
- throw101010 3y ago
  And the potential use of this data by governments around the world for less innocuous purposes than "showing relevant ads". It is not too surprising that companies who can profit from it push the data collection as far as they can. It is more surprising/troubling how the people in general seem to either have completely capitulated due to the generalization of the data collection... or fail to understand the implications it can have. Thankfully some people in EU courts still think that privacy is a right.
  - corbezzoli 3y ago

runesoerensen 3y ago

For people who don't read Norwegian, here's the Norwegian Data Protection Authority's previous post on this matter (which the EDPB has now sided with Norway on) in English: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/meta-case-brought-to-the-european-level/ https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/me... More details on the temporary ban: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/temporary-ban-of-behavioural-advertising-on-facebook-and-instagram/ https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/te...

fsckboy 3y ago

scandinavians are no different from other people, and changing the rules of advertising will not diminish Norwegian companies from wanting to advertise their goods. back in the 80's Norway had a ban on cigarette advertising, so Marlboro launched a clothing/lifestyle brand, blue jeans and other cowboy style clothes. With their competitors hobbled by the advertising ban, perhaps that was even more effective.

Barrin92 3y ago
>scandinavians are no different from other people Household consumption as a % of GDP in Norway is 30% compared to 68% in the US. The Norwegian public sector produces 70% of Norway's GDP. You're underestimating to what extent these policies reflect real differences in how countries are run. In the good old USA Facebook et al are allowed to do what they do because people keeping those credit cards busy is what keeps the economy up. Doesn't work that way in Norway and a decent chunk of Europe.
- tschwimmer 3y ago
  70% seemed insanely high to me and so I checked this. It seems like the IMF has a similar (but not exact stat) that you quoted as 48%: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/NOR?zoom=NOR&highlight=NOR https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/NOR?zoom=NOR... USA is 42% on the same measure.
  - Barrin92 3y ago
    Government expenditure is a very different metric as that's just what the state spends, not how it generates its income. Which in theory could be almost entirely by the private sector. Here's the US state department quoting the relevant reports (https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-investment-climate-statements/norway/ https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-investment-climate-statem...) "The public sector accounts for nearly 66 percent of GDP. The Norwegian government is the largest owner in Norway, with ownership stakes in a range of key sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, finance, and communications)"[...]
- 3y ago

unsubstantiated 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bfrog 3y ago

I wish the US would get its act together on stuff like this but it’s too busy getting campaign funds from such schemes

shiroiuma 3y ago
It's not just that; the US just doesn't believe much in regulating businesses, even if they're demonstrably harming society. They really believe "The Invisible Hand" will make everything better in the end.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > the US just doesn't believe much in regulating businesses The US has tons of strange regulations like banning car manufacturers from selling cars themselves without a middleman or dictating what kind of showerheads are allowed to be sold.
  - mozman 3y ago
    Fun fact: most showerheads can easily be modified to allow maximum water flow rates. 30 seconds and a pair of pliers is often all it takes.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    The US is nothing if not inconsistent. The car-selling thing is due to state laws, not federal, and really the result of corruption: the dealerships are politically connected. The showerhead thing is due to environmentalism, so the US does sometimes make regulations with that impetus. There's no environmental aspect to banning targeted advertisements; it's purely social.
    - layer8 3y ago
      > There's no environmental aspect to banning targeted advertisements; it's purely social. Arguably, the process of targeted advertisements consumes more power.

radium3d 3y ago

I don't think it's the ads people need to be worried about. It's pages, groups and their "users" posts manipulating people. News flash: a majority aren't even real human users.

polygamous_bat 3y ago
Why not both?
- radium3d 3y ago
  Ads are less worrisome because you know they're an ad because they are marked with a icon usually. It's the fake posts that are tricking people into beliefs without them even realizing that it's propaganda/ads
omarfarooq 3y ago
Source that dissects this?
- Auracle 3y ago
  I always doubt anyone who sees 'bots' everywhere they go, but I agree with them on the groups part. https://old.reddit.com/r/ShitMomGroupsSay/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ShitMomGroupsSay/ regularly has some good examples. Ironically, I've posted there a couple of times in a way that (barely) went against their own groupthink and got downvoted like crazy.
  - omarfarooq 3y ago
    I wonder how much of these are powered by GPT.
- radium3d 3y ago
  There are some articles regarding it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/05/google-and-facebook-urged-by-eu-to-label-ai-generated-content https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/05/google-an... My personal theory is that we have been mingling with AI generated content long before Chat GPT was revealed to the public, at least in the last 10-15 years. And that Chat GPT was not the first on the block manipulating people with the technology. I just think this based on the fact that the NSA was spying on people long before whistle blowers revealed it, same has to go for AI manipulation by various government agencies and non government "bad actors". We may get confirmation of this within the next 10-15 years if someone blows a whistle.

make_it_sure 3y ago

[flagged]

janosdebugs 3y ago
US companies need to pay VAT when they sell to EU customers and EU companies don't pay VAT when they sell to US customers, so that can't be the reason.
- NorwegianDude 3y ago
  There is sales tax for US too, so where you are located does not really mater. Companies outside US pays sales tax in the US.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gherkinnn 3y ago
If those startups built anything that goes against GDPR then good riddance.

throwaway237289 3y ago

[flagged]

yowzadave 3y ago
> You teach those filthy capitalists while you sit on a sovereign fund of oil wealth. Not sure how this is supposed to be a gotcha—a sovereign wealth fund is by definition socialistic?
- pb7 3y ago
  The point is they never learned how to create any value because they’re sitting on a goldmine.
- okr 3y ago
  Dirty oil money made you filthy rich, while destroying the environment. And from that pedastal you judge about other filthy capitalists. It is all a joke. (But, maybe you are right, hackernews is full of people saturated on a pedestal and judging from there with a socialistic mindset. Well, it is a virus, that takes on young people with yet underdeveloped brains. ;)
seydor 3y ago
Banning facebook would be a great thing for local replacements because it's relatively easy to replicate and will re-create some online advertising business. Once the local startups take off there will be pressure to dismantle business-hostile aspects of gdpr to sustain it. EU completely submitted to american online superiority, but as china shows, protectionism can fix that.

neontomo 3y ago

Context from the Norwegian article: Meta promised to ask users whether they want to opt-in, but they never did, so now they are banning these behaviours until they have come up with a better way of handling this. Furthermore, Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal.

xp84 3y ago
> Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal. I really don't get this attitude. I 100% endorse everyone's right to uninstall every Meta app and never use them, and to block their on-page trackers on third-party websites with an adblocker, all that. But the notion that there should be some sort of EU-protected "Right To Use Facebook For Free"... nah. Using the apps inherently shares data with the company whose servers you're using. Don't like it, that's fine, there's only one correct recourse: Don't use it. Also, if Facebook's users were all paying for it (and all its competitors), there would be no advertising on it, and incentives in social media would be aligned much better. The government which requires companies to provide their service "for free" would be actively working against that better world by pushing the ad-supported model, which they clearly hate, as the only one.
- stubish 3y ago
  What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling your vote or selling yourself into slavery or accepting licenses in conflict with rights granted by local consumer laws. Some things we don't want assigned a value that can be traded. The EU has decided that the right to privacy includes not being tracked on the Internet, and any 'you can only use this if you give up your right or pay money' is not going to be allowed, because it ends up destroying that right for many.
  - pests 3y ago
    But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?

asylteltine 3y ago

[dead]

randomdev3 3y ago

They could just show dumb ads and it might even work better. It's not so hard, you look at the page /content and get the ad category. I've had Google and Meta account for more than 10 years and all ads are completely irrelevant. I go to r/programming on new browser and they show me ads that actually might have something interesting.

alkonaut 3y ago
The whole adtech vs. hand-crafted ad systems is a big question for small site owners who can't be asked to sell their own ad space etc. But Meta is in a very special position. They have enough user data to pinpoint ads without having to trade data with anyone. They are large enough that they can easily manage all their ad sales in-house. They if anyone should be interested in really strict regulation. Because if everyone just has to use the data they have in house for good reason (Facebook does have my age, city, interests etc and I accept that!) then facebook has an extreme advantage in advertising.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  > The whole adtech vs. hand-crafted ad systems is a big question for small site owners who can't be asked to sell their own ad space etc. Could the ad networks scan the site instead and use the content on the pages to determine likely target audiences? You could still do ad networks, and target audience, based on the site that they are currently on. The current version of adtech is pretty damaging to society as a whole and it's getting increasingly worse. Apparently nothing online or content related is able to generate enough revenue to keep itself afloat without ads. Manufactures of TVs and cars are collecting and selling data to increase profit, but are themselves buying ads, making it akin to a pyramid scheme. Maybe we need to start taking a look at the industries that are heavily depending on selling ad space to survive and question if they need to exist, or should be transformed into actual products.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    > Could the ad networks scan the site instead and use the content on the pages to determine likely target audiences? You could still do ad networks, and target audience, based on the site that they are currently on. Yes. But it simply doesn't work as well for most cases as targeting based on what you watched on netflix yesterday, googled last tuesday, and what products you had in your shopping basked last year but removed before you checked out.

personomas 3y ago

Totally insanity.

rambambram 3y ago

I translated this text to English and what I don't understand is they talk about the Norwegian Data Protection Authority, quickly say something about European Privacy Council, and then go on telling: > "The Norwegian Privacy Council's decision is an instruction to the Irish Data Protection Authority to place a permanent ban on Meta's European head office in Ireland. Once this has happened, the ban will come into effect." Either Norway is banning something on their own, or they follow EU regulations, but I don't think a 'Norwegian ban gets extended to here and there'. I have the feeling stuff gets mixed up a little here.

Joeri 3y ago
The holding company for Meta in the EU is located in Ireland because the double Irish system of accounting allowed them to avoid paying corporate taxes in the EU. (Not sure if this is still the case, I think they now always have to pay the minimum 13% rate.) I think any kind of enforcement against Meta has to go through Ireland because of that. The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action.
- rambambram 3y ago
  > The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action. I know, that's why the order of things mentioned in the article feels out of line.
rusk 3y ago
My guess is they implemented EU policy (all states implement their owns laws to satisfy the various EU treaties) and they have notified the Irish DPC of their findings; and naturally expect Ireland to follow suit …

dadadatamen 3y ago

behavioral marketing is about more than making money. you are nudging millions and billions of people in certain directions. It has completely changed majorities of brackets of the current and last generation. laws will not be enough to stop this

Nextgrid 3y ago
Laws may not be enough but it would be a good start at least. If that doesn’t work we’ll try something else.
- dadadatamen 3y ago
  my bad for not elaborating. we have always been dependant on whistleblowers and ethical hackers and now, for just a few years, we are at the tipping point where they are the last line of defence. Corruption has almost irreversibly disabled the playing field on which the civil society can act as a red team to corporate visions and strategies. Something else is always in attempt and laws are an absolute must but whether either of the many measures work, lies in the hands of whistleblowers and hackers.

janandonly 3y ago

Maybe this makes my ultimate dream come one step closer: paying for what I use (I still like to log into Instagram about once a month), without being tracked at all, and without having to watch any advertising at all.

merdaverse 3y ago

> The Norwegian Privacy Council's decision is an instruction to the Irish Data Protection Authority to place a permanent ban on Meta's European head office in Ireland Isn't this going to be a problem? The Irish DPA has been known to be in bed with big tech in the past, considering Ireland's entire economy is based around being a tax haven for Big Tech, and importing tech workers with the highest EU salaries taxed at 52% for the highest bracket https://web.archive.org/web/20230609051152/https://www.irishtimes.com/technology/2023/06/01/why-did-the-irish-data-regulator-not-want-to-fine-meta/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230609051152/https://www.irish...