4 ms·

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.
      - danorama 2y ago
        If you knew what they were, you wouldn't have used the phrase "when people are free to choose to have an account with them."
        refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article we're discussing, and attendant court decision, is about someone with a Facebook account and the ads in their "social media news feed", not someone without an account who was being profiled. Did I miss something? Tangentially, I'd also like to, again, gently, push back on the idea that it's conducive to community health to use an accusatory interlocution approach, especially one that relies on mind-reading to make the accusations. To provide explanation as to why I am comfortable claiming that, some excerpts from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: - "...Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." - "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less" - "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." - "Please don't post shallow dismissals...A good critical comment teaches us something."
        danorama 2y ago
        My apologies if I misinterpreted, but this sentence: "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." Implied to me that you were saying that the information they were gathering was only coming from people who have an account with them. I don't have an account with them, and I'm pretty sure they're collecting all sorts of data on me (despite having every known Meta hostname in my /etc/hosts file pointing to 127.1). But reading your sentence again, it looks like you were saying something a little different. It seems like I might have misunderstood your point at first glance. My apologies for the snark.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- slackr 2y ago
  It was about the data, not ads per se: https://www.awo.agency/files/ocarroll-v-meta-bundle.pdf https://www.awo.agency/files/ocarroll-v-meta-bundle.pdf

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.
    - danorama 2y ago
      If you knew what they were, you wouldn't have used the phrase "when people are free to choose to have an account with them."
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article we're discussing, and attendant court decision, is about someone with a Facebook account and the ads in their "social media news feed", not someone without an account who was being profiled. Did I miss something? Tangentially, I'd also like to, again, gently, push back on the idea that it's conducive to community health to use an accusatory interlocution approach, especially one that relies on mind-reading to make the accusations. To provide explanation as to why I am comfortable claiming that, some excerpts from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: - "...Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." - "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less" - "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." - "Please don't post shallow dismissals...A good critical comment teaches us something."
        danorama 2y ago
        My apologies if I misinterpreted, but this sentence: "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." Implied to me that you were saying that the information they were gathering was only coming from people who have an account with them. I don't have an account with them, and I'm pretty sure they're collecting all sorts of data on me (despite having every known Meta hostname in my /etc/hosts file pointing to 127.1). But reading your sentence again, it looks like you were saying something a little different. It seems like I might have misunderstood your point at first glance. My apologies for the snark.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
slackr 2y ago
It was about the data, not ads per se: https://www.awo.agency/files/ocarroll-v-meta-bundle.pdf https://www.awo.agency/files/ocarroll-v-meta-bundle.pdf