6 ms·

Facebook to stop targeting ads at UK woman after legal fight

133 points by dijksterhuis 2y ago

Spivak 2y ago
I'm glad to see a court agreeing that targeting specific characteristics of people and then Facebook using their knowledge of individuals to serve them ads is targeting specific individuals.
snapcaster 2y ago
Awesome to see, hope we see enough of this to make the business model non-viable
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  It's crept up gradually on people how harmful the "personalization" model is. My pet peeve is that many community organizations (such as a board game club and a game development club at my Uni) use Facebook and Instagram as their only communication channels. That kind of platform opens you up to so much bullshit, bullying and cringe (all these girls who look the same who supposedly want to follow me) You might be sharing content which is really wholesome but you have no idea what is getting served right next to it. It's rare to see an organization like this one https://fingerlakesrunners.org/ https://fingerlakesrunners.org/ where you won't find anything that isn't about running, where moderations can squash things that aren't relevant without cries of "censorship", etc. I wouldn't even mind if a site like that had ads for running shoes or Wegmans or local car dealerships but personalized ads and other recommendations can be so toxic and not things you want associated with your organization or your brand.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    Yes, it's really unfortunate that having a Meta account is just assumed by society
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - frenchtoast8 2y ago
    I can understand small businesses relying on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter because they may not have the resources to provide a perfect solution to everyone. My country’s consulate in NYC posts important news only to Facebook. That is a problem.
    - b112 2y ago
      Same with my municipality.
    - devilbunny 2y ago
      I suppose I see the appeal, but for 99% of small businesses, I want your name, address, hours, and phone number, and a list of services you provide (e.g., if you're a restaurant, have a sample menu even if yours is variable; if you're a plumber, tell me how big of a job you can handle; if you're a store, show me the kind of things you sell). A simple static web page can handle that. I don't expect Janice's Flowers to have a site that rivals a multinational corporation.
OJFord 2y ago
I object more to the data collection and sale that allows Facebook to target ads like that, than the actual targeting of ads (which I would block anyway) personally.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Agreed, but i think we are allowed to be happy about meta taking the L on this
  - OJFord 2y ago
    Well sure I'm not saying it should've won the case, I just wish the claim was a bit different. (Or at least, than represented by the BBC, I haven't actually read it. If it was more about the data, then I wish the article would've done a better job so that more laypeople object to the right aspect.)
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      s/the right aspect/my thing I'm not a layperson, and I don't think the problem is collecting info. It's hard to legislate "you cannot collect any info about people ever", when people are free to choose to have an account with them. The same is served by "you have to target >= 100 people for an ad"
      - sumeno 2y ago
        Facebook doesn't just collect data on it's users or just through the use of it's website.
      - danorama 2y ago
        You might want to look up the term “shadow profiles” as it applies to Facebook.
        refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm quite comfortable knowing what they are and pointing out the early-2010s naive absolutist approach to privacy didn't work, hence where we are. Regardless of whether people choose to conversate by telling me what to Google, instead of coming with curiosity and/or contributions. The same thought process that leads to commentators being confused why Apple rejected someone's app for having a privacy policy of "I don't collect data" applies here. I'm glad a less naive, and non-absolutist, approach has gotten tangible results, even if it'll take a few years for it to be common wisdom rather than disagreeable to look back on the 2010s and say so.
MisterTea 2y ago
Good. > She said the adverts she got "suddenly started changing within weeks to lots of baby photos and other things - ads about babies and pregnancy and motherhood". > "I just found it unnerving - this was before I'd even told people in my private life, and yet Facebook had already determined that I was pregnant," she continued. Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone. When these companies started using their apps to eavesdrop on your entire life via your phone, I immediately deleted them. No way is that creeptastic shit allowed in my life. I mean, imagine talking about doritos in a nostalgic context only to have amazon suggest you buy them when you open the app. Deleted. The only apps on my phone are banking and utility. Bye Felicia.
- abound 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't think there's any hard evidence that big companies are doing this. Aside from the technical difficulties of constantly listening to 1+ B mobile devices and running speech-to-text, it'd also be a legal quagmire. What's more likely happening is far more boring: humans as a whole are very predictable, and the metadata that Facebook et al have access to is more than enough to identify these patterns. To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. To make it less likely you pick something that is subconsciously on your mind (and thus able to be picked up via your metadata), try playing word association games to pick the product in question. E.g. banana > yellow > raincoat > weather > digital thermometer
  - toast0 2y ago
    > To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. That's the trick isn't it. How do you choose a random purchasable item without indicating interest in. Is it because it was something you saw recently, but don't want to buy? How many (targetting) similar people near you also saw that and may want to buy? How much is that ad being shown to you now, but you hadn't noticed because you weren't interested in the product? It's certainly possible to carefully craft an experiment, but it's not easy. And a poorly crafted expirement won't show much.
flkiwi 2y ago
Apropos of little (with apologies), it's remarkable how much less I loathe people since I nuked my Facebook account. I hadn't even been a regular user for years, but walking away--which involved changing my password to something I didn't save and an expiring email address rather than deleting my account--has just generally improved my attitude about both individuals I know and people in general.
- abalashov 2y ago
  I’d be curious to learn more about that, having flirted with the same idea.
  - Liquix 2y ago
    1. Delete or revoke your own access to social media accounts 2. Enjoy increased quality of life Easier said than done, but those are the only steps
  - freehorse 2y ago
    Once I had changed my soc media passwords and encrypted them in a way that it would have taken several hours to bruteforce. Thus I could stay out of them until I felt being in a better place without losing them, and in the meantime I would not give in due to some impulse because in the time I would put an effort to decrypt them the impulse would be gone. That's the only thing that worked, just blocking access somehow or whatever did not work because it was too easy/fast to circumvent.
  - aeontech 2y ago
    I use an app called Clearspace on iOS - it hooks into the screen time API and prompts you with a "breathe in / breathe out" timer before it allows you to unblock the app. It also lets you unblock it for a specific configurable time period, and auto-closes the app once that period expires. I found it gives me just enough friction that most of the time, the impulse to open the app passes while I wait for the breath timer to run out. Simply using the OS screen time limit on its own is not really enough, because it's too easy to dismiss and override the block. Having a brief timer to help you consider whether my action is intentional or driven by anxiety or thoughtless boredom really helps.
beardyw 2y ago
"Facebook and Instagram have a subscription service in most of Europe, where users can pay monthly so that they don't get ads on the platform." As far as I can see that doesn't alter anything in this judgement.
- 4ndrewl 2y ago
  It doesn't, but afaik the reason they introduced the pricing model was that they fell foul of EU data laws. They also issued some PR this morning suggesting this was something they were looking at for the UK, so perhaps it's indicative of their direction of travel.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It probably didn’t influence the judgement much (if at all). But the relevance to the story is in the next paragraph and pretty straightforward > The Meta spokesperson said the company was "exploring the option" of offering a similar service to UK users and would "share further information in due course."
explain 2y ago
[flagged]
- fullofideas 2y ago
  I believe GDPR explicitly prevents such behavior.
dutchCourage 2y ago
Slight tangent but while this is bad with disclosed ads, I think it's even worse with algorithmic feeds. A lot of users don't realize that not only their feed is heavily personalized, but the "top comments" are also selected just for them. This bias will be implemented in LLMs sooner or later. Combined with the current misunderstanding of "AI" by the general population, it makes me worried about the future of misinformation.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  Cambridge Analytica/SCL/Meta are knowingly in the personalised propaganda business - political behaviour modification tailored to individual emotional triggers, sweetened with personally irresistible content that looks harmless but exists to hook users on the real payload. "And here's some more content about your favourite band/movie/TV show/influencer. And now, some reels. Aren't those cats cute? But anyway. Here's a reel that looks unobjectionable but subtly makes a political point you should definitely think about. Would you like to know more?" AI has the potential to make this much more effective. Certain noteworthy historical figures from Germany would have been absolutely delighted.
thrance 2y ago
I really think we should have a EU-wide ban on targeted advertising. Targeted advertising only works if it is opt-out. Ask random people on the street wether or not they want to be tracked and have their data sold and the overwhelming majority will tell you no.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  Yes please, and remove offline-public-spaces advertising too. I don’t care if the lost revenue means worse roads and some companies bankrupted, I just want to see the tree behind the billboards. I’m tired to fight my own mind when commuting between walls of videos ads. Targeted or not, 2025 ads are a blight.
  - lifestyleguru 2y ago
    Billboards... nowadays you have billboard sized LED screens flashing animated ads... Many ads turn "creative" using bright flashing text, or strong white/red light. Some cunts are convinced they're just doing their job installing this shit or selling the airtime.
akomtu 2y ago
What big tech is doing is much closer to this: - Ads is a substance, very invasive and toxic, that alters the behavior of its users. They consume ads unwillingly, when the latter is mixed into their drinks and food. Ads are often tailored to different groups of users. - Advertisers are the manufacturers of ads. They do extensive research into how to make the ads more invasive, and pay a lot to get the ads delivered to the users. - Content is a type of food that's designed to be highly addictive. It's mostly made of sugar, artificial colors to make it look appealing, and of certain chemicals to invoke strong emotions, usually negative. While content isn't designed to be toxic, it is. The prolonged use of content destroys the ability to focus and deregulates control of emotions. Its users become impulsive, with a very short attention span. These weaknesses make it easy to serve them ads. - Big Tech is the international ads cartel. It creates so called social network platforms that attract users in billions, profiles and tags them, manufactures content tailored to different groups, and lets advertisers serve ads for a fee. Because this entire industry works at the mental and emotional levels, as of 2025 its activity isn't considered a crime.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"Meta said it disagreed with Ms O'Carroll's claims, adding "no business can be mandated to give away its services for free."" Except that is what O'Carroll just did. If Meta disagrees with O'Carroll's claims then why settle. Why not fight. Facebook used to have a marketing soundbite/Zuckerberg quote something like "Facebook will always be free." Now Meta claims it is not free. BTW, the "Careless People" book is available for free in audio book form, read by the author, from many particpating public libraries.
- alaxhn 2y ago
  "If Meta disagrees with O'Carroll's claims then why settle" Meta and most companies will settle lawsuits when they believe the rewards of continuing the lawsuit outweigh the cost of settling the lawsuit. There is no connection to whether they disagree or agree with the claim of the lawsuit.
  - eek2121 2y ago
    You only got that half right, fyi. Companies will choose to settle if they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trial. If they suspect they will win, they will absolutely pursue, because they can counter-sue in many areas. Anything close to 50/50 or less, they will settle in a heartbeat. They may even have a winning case, only to realize they are up against a law firm that will rip them apart.
    - alaxhn 2y ago
      "Companies will choose to settle if they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trial" Companies will settle if the costs of going to trail outweigh the benefits like I said in my original comment. To clarify, the cost benefit analysis includes more than just money as things like reputation and precedent are important too. The reason for settling is sometimes because they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trail (meaning low potential benefit) but not always and this is not even the most common reason to settle. In the article being cited facebook is agreeing "to stop targeting ads at UK woman after legal fight". This is an individual settlement and not a group settlement. Targeting ads at a single user has very low benefits for Facebook (tens to hundreds of dollars) which will not even pay for a single hour of a lawyer's time. It would be absurd for Facebook to counter sue Ms. O'Carrol and counter suits in general are quite rare. To provide some approximate numbers: - ~90% of cases settle - ~1% of cases involve a counter suit - Facebook legal cost for in house counsel appears to be in the range of $250 per hour equivalent - Facebook average annual revenue per user in Europe is about $25 The full story here is that Ms. O'Carrol is a legal activist focused on Tech Surveillance (https://www.foxglove.org.uk/who-we-are/people/tanya-ocarroll-senior-fellow/ https://www.foxglove.org.uk/who-we-are/people/tanya-ocarroll...) and Facebook came up with a strategy to undermine her legal standing at minimal cost to themselves (if Facebook is not tracking O'Carrol personally for the purposes of serving ads then O'Carrol personally has no standing to sue). This is in effect a win for big tech but being spun by a PR machine as a win for data privacy.
MrStonedOne 2y ago
[dead]
lifestyleguru 2y ago
As far as ads and Europe are concerned, I'm astonished how Kaufland and Lidl get away with distributing weekly unsolicited physical leaflets to every doorstep within certain radius of their shops which is the case at least in Poland and Germany. I do not want to be on their blacklist or whitelist, simply do not fucking deliver me this paper okay?
GoToRO 2y ago
Luckily, ads that steal people's credit card's info are allowed and not removed by Facebook even after multiple reports. That's how you become one of the richest man?
- donatj 2y ago
  Explain how an ad steals credit card info
  - mog_dev 2y ago
    The ad itself doesnt steal credit card info, but forwards you to a website that does.
  - pebble 2y ago
    Phishing links, tech support scams.. it's not hard to imagine.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    I presume phishing. Ad goes to e-commerce site, items never ship.
  - LexGray 2y ago
    https://malwaretips.com/blogs/my-realistic-bunny-toy-scam-2/ https://malwaretips.com/blogs/my-realistic-bunny-toy-scam-2/
- GoToRO 2y ago
  In this case, ad redirected to a copy of a famous apparel store. When clicking to pay for item, the site would redirect to what looked like a genuine auto parts store that was probably hacked. You would enter the card data there. What got me was that I was tired and the fact that fb opened the websites on their embedded browser. At the time at least, the browser would not show the web address so you would not know that you are on a fake website, or on a website that clearly had "auto parts" in it's name. I didn't lost any money because I blocked the card. In about more than a month I receive a notification grom my bank that an ATM transaction was tried but it failed.
NetOpWibby 2y ago
Someone here on HN should create a service that allows for easy "click and sue" Big Creepy Tech. Oh, and get someone from Stanford to be co-founder. Instant legitimacy and money.
codedokode 2y ago
From the caption I thought there was someone (like ex-boyfriend) who targeted ill-meaning ads (like an ad for funeral services) against the woman, but it turns out it was not so bad.
heldergg 2y ago
It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if targeted ads were simply forbidden. Likewise for targeted content.
aucisson_masque 2y ago
> Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalised advertising. It could just as well be free without personalized ads but with regular advertisement. As far as I know Facebook is extremely profitable.
googlehater 2y ago
jessica chastain lookalike no?
PeterStuer 2y ago
'She said that she did not want to stop using Facebook, saying that it is "filled with ... entire chapters of my life".' At some point you have to ponder wether the right choices were made when you write up entire chapters of your life on an ad-broker's website.

133 points by dijksterhuis 2y ago

I'm glad to see a court agreeing that targeting specific characteristics of people and then Facebook using their knowledge of individuals to serve them ads is targeting specific individuals.

snapcaster 2y ago

Awesome to see, hope we see enough of this to make the business model non-viable

PaulHoule 2y ago
It's crept up gradually on people how harmful the "personalization" model is. My pet peeve is that many community organizations (such as a board game club and a game development club at my Uni) use Facebook and Instagram as their only communication channels. That kind of platform opens you up to so much bullshit, bullying and cringe (all these girls who look the same who supposedly want to follow me) You might be sharing content which is really wholesome but you have no idea what is getting served right next to it. It's rare to see an organization like this one https://fingerlakesrunners.org/ https://fingerlakesrunners.org/ where you won't find anything that isn't about running, where moderations can squash things that aren't relevant without cries of "censorship", etc. I wouldn't even mind if a site like that had ads for running shoes or Wegmans or local car dealerships but personalized ads and other recommendations can be so toxic and not things you want associated with your organization or your brand.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Yes, it's really unfortunate that having a Meta account is just assumed by society
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- frenchtoast8 2y ago
  I can understand small businesses relying on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter because they may not have the resources to provide a perfect solution to everyone. My country’s consulate in NYC posts important news only to Facebook. That is a problem.
  - b112 2y ago
    Same with my municipality.
  - devilbunny 2y ago
    I suppose I see the appeal, but for 99% of small businesses, I want your name, address, hours, and phone number, and a list of services you provide (e.g., if you're a restaurant, have a sample menu even if yours is variable; if you're a plumber, tell me how big of a job you can handle; if you're a store, show me the kind of things you sell). A simple static web page can handle that. I don't expect Janice's Flowers to have a site that rivals a multinational corporation.

OJFord 2y ago

I object more to the data collection and sale that allows Facebook to target ads like that, than the actual targeting of ads (which I would block anyway) personally.

snapcaster 2y ago
Agreed, but i think we are allowed to be happy about meta taking the L on this
- OJFord 2y ago
  Well sure I'm not saying it should've won the case, I just wish the claim was a bit different. (Or at least, than represented by the BBC, I haven't actually read it. If it was more about the data, then I wish the article would've done a better job so that more laypeople object to the right aspect.)
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    s/the right aspect/my thing I'm not a layperson, and I don't think the problem is collecting info. It's hard to legislate "you cannot collect any info about people ever", when people are free to choose to have an account with them. The same is served by "you have to target >= 100 people for an ad"
    - sumeno 2y ago
      Facebook doesn't just collect data on it's users or just through the use of it's website.
    - danorama 2y ago
      You might want to look up the term “shadow profiles” as it applies to Facebook.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm quite comfortable knowing what they are and pointing out the early-2010s naive absolutist approach to privacy didn't work, hence where we are. Regardless of whether people choose to conversate by telling me what to Google, instead of coming with curiosity and/or contributions. The same thought process that leads to commentators being confused why Apple rejected someone's app for having a privacy policy of "I don't collect data" applies here. I'm glad a less naive, and non-absolutist, approach has gotten tangible results, even if it'll take a few years for it to be common wisdom rather than disagreeable to look back on the 2010s and say so.

MisterTea 2y ago

Good. > She said the adverts she got "suddenly started changing within weeks to lots of baby photos and other things - ads about babies and pregnancy and motherhood". > "I just found it unnerving - this was before I'd even told people in my private life, and yet Facebook had already determined that I was pregnant," she continued. Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone. When these companies started using their apps to eavesdrop on your entire life via your phone, I immediately deleted them. No way is that creeptastic shit allowed in my life. I mean, imagine talking about doritos in a nostalgic context only to have amazon suggest you buy them when you open the app. Deleted. The only apps on my phone are banking and utility. Bye Felicia.

abound 2y ago
For what it's worth, I don't think there's any hard evidence that big companies are doing this. Aside from the technical difficulties of constantly listening to 1+ B mobile devices and running speech-to-text, it'd also be a legal quagmire. What's more likely happening is far more boring: humans as a whole are very predictable, and the metadata that Facebook et al have access to is more than enough to identify these patterns. To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. To make it less likely you pick something that is subconsciously on your mind (and thus able to be picked up via your metadata), try playing word association games to pick the product in question. E.g. banana > yellow > raincoat > weather > digital thermometer
- toast0 2y ago
  > To _really_ try and test this, you could download the Facebook (or Amazon or whatever) app, and (within earshot of your phone) consistently talk about some completely random purchaseable item that you have no intent to purchase and have never otherwise indicated you have an interest in. Chances are you will not get ads for it. That's the trick isn't it. How do you choose a random purchasable item without indicating interest in. Is it because it was something you saw recently, but don't want to buy? How many (targetting) similar people near you also saw that and may want to buy? How much is that ad being shown to you now, but you hadn't noticed because you weren't interested in the product? It's certainly possible to carefully craft an experiment, but it's not easy. And a poorly crafted expirement won't show much.

flkiwi 2y ago

Apropos of little (with apologies), it's remarkable how much less I loathe people since I nuked my Facebook account. I hadn't even been a regular user for years, but walking away--which involved changing my password to something I didn't save and an expiring email address rather than deleting my account--has just generally improved my attitude about both individuals I know and people in general.

abalashov 2y ago
I’d be curious to learn more about that, having flirted with the same idea.
- Liquix 2y ago
  1. Delete or revoke your own access to social media accounts 2. Enjoy increased quality of life Easier said than done, but those are the only steps
- freehorse 2y ago
  Once I had changed my soc media passwords and encrypted them in a way that it would have taken several hours to bruteforce. Thus I could stay out of them until I felt being in a better place without losing them, and in the meantime I would not give in due to some impulse because in the time I would put an effort to decrypt them the impulse would be gone. That's the only thing that worked, just blocking access somehow or whatever did not work because it was too easy/fast to circumvent.
- aeontech 2y ago
  I use an app called Clearspace on iOS - it hooks into the screen time API and prompts you with a "breathe in / breathe out" timer before it allows you to unblock the app. It also lets you unblock it for a specific configurable time period, and auto-closes the app once that period expires. I found it gives me just enough friction that most of the time, the impulse to open the app passes while I wait for the breath timer to run out. Simply using the OS screen time limit on its own is not really enough, because it's too easy to dismiss and override the block. Having a brief timer to help you consider whether my action is intentional or driven by anxiety or thoughtless boredom really helps.

beardyw 2y ago

"Facebook and Instagram have a subscription service in most of Europe, where users can pay monthly so that they don't get ads on the platform." As far as I can see that doesn't alter anything in this judgement.

4ndrewl 2y ago
It doesn't, but afaik the reason they introduced the pricing model was that they fell foul of EU data laws. They also issued some PR this morning suggesting this was something they were looking at for the UK, so perhaps it's indicative of their direction of travel.
bee_rider 2y ago
It probably didn’t influence the judgement much (if at all). But the relevance to the story is in the next paragraph and pretty straightforward > The Meta spokesperson said the company was "exploring the option" of offering a similar service to UK users and would "share further information in due course."

explain 2y ago

[flagged]

fullofideas 2y ago
I believe GDPR explicitly prevents such behavior.

dutchCourage 2y ago

Slight tangent but while this is bad with disclosed ads, I think it's even worse with algorithmic feeds. A lot of users don't realize that not only their feed is heavily personalized, but the "top comments" are also selected just for them. This bias will be implemented in LLMs sooner or later. Combined with the current misunderstanding of "AI" by the general population, it makes me worried about the future of misinformation.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
Cambridge Analytica/SCL/Meta are knowingly in the personalised propaganda business - political behaviour modification tailored to individual emotional triggers, sweetened with personally irresistible content that looks harmless but exists to hook users on the real payload. "And here's some more content about your favourite band/movie/TV show/influencer. And now, some reels. Aren't those cats cute? But anyway. Here's a reel that looks unobjectionable but subtly makes a political point you should definitely think about. Would you like to know more?" AI has the potential to make this much more effective. Certain noteworthy historical figures from Germany would have been absolutely delighted.

thrance 2y ago

I really think we should have a EU-wide ban on targeted advertising. Targeted advertising only works if it is opt-out. Ask random people on the street wether or not they want to be tracked and have their data sold and the overwhelming majority will tell you no.

aziaziazi 2y ago
Yes please, and remove offline-public-spaces advertising too. I don’t care if the lost revenue means worse roads and some companies bankrupted, I just want to see the tree behind the billboards. I’m tired to fight my own mind when commuting between walls of videos ads. Targeted or not, 2025 ads are a blight.
- lifestyleguru 2y ago
  Billboards... nowadays you have billboard sized LED screens flashing animated ads... Many ads turn "creative" using bright flashing text, or strong white/red light. Some cunts are convinced they're just doing their job installing this shit or selling the airtime.

akomtu 2y ago

What big tech is doing is much closer to this: - Ads is a substance, very invasive and toxic, that alters the behavior of its users. They consume ads unwillingly, when the latter is mixed into their drinks and food. Ads are often tailored to different groups of users. - Advertisers are the manufacturers of ads. They do extensive research into how to make the ads more invasive, and pay a lot to get the ads delivered to the users. - Content is a type of food that's designed to be highly addictive. It's mostly made of sugar, artificial colors to make it look appealing, and of certain chemicals to invoke strong emotions, usually negative. While content isn't designed to be toxic, it is. The prolonged use of content destroys the ability to focus and deregulates control of emotions. Its users become impulsive, with a very short attention span. These weaknesses make it easy to serve them ads. - Big Tech is the international ads cartel. It creates so called social network platforms that attract users in billions, profiles and tags them, manufactures content tailored to different groups, and lets advertisers serve ads for a fee. Because this entire industry works at the mental and emotional levels, as of 2025 its activity isn't considered a crime.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"Meta said it disagreed with Ms O'Carroll's claims, adding "no business can be mandated to give away its services for free."" Except that is what O'Carroll just did. If Meta disagrees with O'Carroll's claims then why settle. Why not fight. Facebook used to have a marketing soundbite/Zuckerberg quote something like "Facebook will always be free." Now Meta claims it is not free. BTW, the "Careless People" book is available for free in audio book form, read by the author, from many particpating public libraries.

alaxhn 2y ago
"If Meta disagrees with O'Carroll's claims then why settle" Meta and most companies will settle lawsuits when they believe the rewards of continuing the lawsuit outweigh the cost of settling the lawsuit. There is no connection to whether they disagree or agree with the claim of the lawsuit.
- eek2121 2y ago
  You only got that half right, fyi. Companies will choose to settle if they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trial. If they suspect they will win, they will absolutely pursue, because they can counter-sue in many areas. Anything close to 50/50 or less, they will settle in a heartbeat. They may even have a winning case, only to realize they are up against a law firm that will rip them apart.
  - alaxhn 2y ago
    "Companies will choose to settle if they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trial" Companies will settle if the costs of going to trail outweigh the benefits like I said in my original comment. To clarify, the cost benefit analysis includes more than just money as things like reputation and precedent are important too. The reason for settling is sometimes because they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trail (meaning low potential benefit) but not always and this is not even the most common reason to settle. In the article being cited facebook is agreeing "to stop targeting ads at UK woman after legal fight". This is an individual settlement and not a group settlement. Targeting ads at a single user has very low benefits for Facebook (tens to hundreds of dollars) which will not even pay for a single hour of a lawyer's time. It would be absurd for Facebook to counter sue Ms. O'Carrol and counter suits in general are quite rare. To provide some approximate numbers: - ~90% of cases settle - ~1% of cases involve a counter suit - Facebook legal cost for in house counsel appears to be in the range of $250 per hour equivalent - Facebook average annual revenue per user in Europe is about $25 The full story here is that Ms. O'Carrol is a legal activist focused on Tech Surveillance (https://www.foxglove.org.uk/who-we-are/people/tanya-ocarroll-senior-fellow/ https://www.foxglove.org.uk/who-we-are/people/tanya-ocarroll...) and Facebook came up with a strategy to undermine her legal standing at minimal cost to themselves (if Facebook is not tracking O'Carrol personally for the purposes of serving ads then O'Carrol personally has no standing to sue). This is in effect a win for big tech but being spun by a PR machine as a win for data privacy.

MrStonedOne 2y ago

[dead]

lifestyleguru 2y ago

As far as ads and Europe are concerned, I'm astonished how Kaufland and Lidl get away with distributing weekly unsolicited physical leaflets to every doorstep within certain radius of their shops which is the case at least in Poland and Germany. I do not want to be on their blacklist or whitelist, simply do not fucking deliver me this paper okay?

GoToRO 2y ago

Luckily, ads that steal people's credit card's info are allowed and not removed by Facebook even after multiple reports. That's how you become one of the richest man?

donatj 2y ago
Explain how an ad steals credit card info
- mog_dev 2y ago
  The ad itself doesnt steal credit card info, but forwards you to a website that does.
- pebble 2y ago
  Phishing links, tech support scams.. it's not hard to imagine.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  I presume phishing. Ad goes to e-commerce site, items never ship.
- LexGray 2y ago
  https://malwaretips.com/blogs/my-realistic-bunny-toy-scam-2/ https://malwaretips.com/blogs/my-realistic-bunny-toy-scam-2/
GoToRO 2y ago
In this case, ad redirected to a copy of a famous apparel store. When clicking to pay for item, the site would redirect to what looked like a genuine auto parts store that was probably hacked. You would enter the card data there. What got me was that I was tired and the fact that fb opened the websites on their embedded browser. At the time at least, the browser would not show the web address so you would not know that you are on a fake website, or on a website that clearly had "auto parts" in it's name. I didn't lost any money because I blocked the card. In about more than a month I receive a notification grom my bank that an ATM transaction was tried but it failed.

NetOpWibby 2y ago

Someone here on HN should create a service that allows for easy "click and sue" Big Creepy Tech. Oh, and get someone from Stanford to be co-founder. Instant legitimacy and money.

codedokode 2y ago

From the caption I thought there was someone (like ex-boyfriend) who targeted ill-meaning ads (like an ad for funeral services) against the woman, but it turns out it was not so bad.

heldergg 2y ago

It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if targeted ads were simply forbidden. Likewise for targeted content.

aucisson_masque 2y ago

> Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalised advertising. It could just as well be free without personalized ads but with regular advertisement. As far as I know Facebook is extremely profitable.

googlehater 2y ago

jessica chastain lookalike no?

PeterStuer 2y ago

'She said that she did not want to stop using Facebook, saying that it is "filled with ... entire chapters of my life".' At some point you have to ponder wether the right choices were made when you write up entire chapters of your life on an ad-broker's website.