3 ms·

What happened was that - Meta profiled the politician based on his political beliefs. This is forbidden under the European Union’s GDPR regime and Meta was fi

by nabla9 2y ago

What happened was that - Meta profiled the politician based on his political beliefs. This is forbidden under the European Union’s GDPR regime and Meta was fined for it. - Additionally Meta was unable to provide sufficient evidence that the candidate actually engaged in the activities they accused him of. Another much smaller fine. Term is irrelevant. If you do algorithmic moderation/visibility change based on political beliefs of a political candidate, you are engaging in politics. Only if you have proof of something illegal, you can step in.

hn_acker 2y ago
I'm not too familiar with EU law, but I think Article 9 of the GDPR [1] would allow for moderation of public posts, at the very least. Here's Article 9 Paragraph 1: > Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. Moderating posts and accounts doesn't require uniquely identifying who uses the accounts. And here's Paragraph 2 Section (e): > processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject; [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
- yorwba 2y ago
  The GDPR has many more articles. The decision https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/sites/default/files/media/hbca/gent/files/uittreksel-inhoud-arrest-03.06.2024-hof-van-beroep-gent-k-7.pdf https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/sites/default/files/med... cites Article 22 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ concerning automated decision-making, which grants "the right to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision." It also cites Article 13 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/ and 14 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-14-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-14-gdpr/ concerning the right to information. AFAICT (my Dutch is not the best) Meta did not properly inform the plaintiff about the shadowban and didn't properly give him the opportunity to contest the decision.

by nabla9 2y ago

hn_acker 2y ago

I'm not too familiar with EU law, but I think Article 9 of the GDPR [1] would allow for moderation of public posts, at the very least. Here's Article 9 Paragraph 1: > Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. Moderating posts and accounts doesn't require uniquely identifying who uses the accounts. And here's Paragraph 2 Section (e): > processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject; [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/

yorwba 2y ago
The GDPR has many more articles. The decision https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/sites/default/files/media/hbca/gent/files/uittreksel-inhoud-arrest-03.06.2024-hof-van-beroep-gent-k-7.pdf https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/sites/default/files/med... cites Article 22 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ concerning automated decision-making, which grants "the right to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller, to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision." It also cites Article 13 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/ and 14 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-14-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-14-gdpr/ concerning the right to information. AFAICT (my Dutch is not the best) Meta did not properly inform the plaintiff about the shadowban and didn't properly give him the opportunity to contest the decision.