4 ms·

It's not completely unwarranted. According to the article, Facebook was fined for their model of asking for pay or accept tracking. Which is exactly what almost

by onli 1y ago

It's not completely unwarranted. According to the article, Facebook was fined for their model of asking for pay or accept tracking. Which is exactly what almost all publishers do, e.g. all big German newspapers. It's absolutely clear that this is against the law - they could show ads, but can't invade the users privacy for that, so no tracking ads - but they do it anyway and got away with it in various decisions. And now Facebook gets a huge fine for the same behaviour. Which is good in a way, maybe it will lead to a behaviour correction also for the smaller publishers. But it's of course not an equal treatment. Apple on the other hand completely deserves its fine, without a question. They got clear rules and did everything to circumvent them. The Apple's Core Technology Fee was obviously illegal. Don't know why they expected to get away with that, there wasn't even a minimal chance of that working. Idiots.

tossandthrow 1y ago
Big German newspapers do not need to comply under DMA. The EU focusses, rightfully, on EU macro dynamics with these laws, not how smaller outlets work. This is very much reasonable. When a platform is big, it has bigger impact, but also bigger budgets to hire legal help and bigger budgets to stay compliant. This is well established in accounting where there exists different rules depending on size (in many jurisdictions)
- fp64 1y ago
  What’s another example of different rules depending on size? “Content Moderation” I think? Anything outside the DMA? I think small companies get some exceptions for documentation requirements?
  - agos 1y ago
    in my part of Europe there are tons: companies over a certain size might have different rules for layoffs, have to have union representatives, must pay for safety courses for the employees, must employ a certain percentage of people with disabilities...
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    It is a derivative of what is called the "Risk Based Approach" in compliance, and is widely adopted. As for companies and accounting you can look into the directive 2013/34/EU that established micro, small, and medium sized companies based on their size. These types of companies have different reporting requirements.
  - eesmith 1y ago
    In the US, some laws specifically exclude small companies. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 requires 15 employees, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires 4 employees.
  - intrasight 1y ago
    You could try to find some analogies but you probably won't succeed since this is clearly just targeting American big Tech
  - dktp 1y ago
    G-SIB banks for example
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  In practice it means that only American companies end up paying large fees to the EU.
  - alextingle 1y ago
    There are no fees.
  - pyrale 1y ago
    It also means that not all US companies have to comply, and that the ones that do are the most competitive companies in the market, making their claim that they have trouble competing moot.
Arkanum 1y ago
I agree, except the DMA specifically only applies to companies over a specific size. I think if the German newspapers were at FB/Apple scale, in terms of number of users, then the DMA would apply (i.e. they would be designated gatekeepers or similar) and they could also be fined. Although I think pay for no ads is also a violation of GDPR maybe?
- onli 1y ago
  Exactly. While DMA does not apply, GDPR does. But it gets ignored and weakened by decision against the letter and the spirit of the law - which does not surprise if you realize how much power those legacy publishers hold. Not so FB, not here at least. So it's not exactly the same regulation but pretty much the same situation. I'd also be pissed.
  - tzs 1y ago
    GDPR does not purport to outlaw targeted advertising. It just purports to require that the target consent. In pretty much every other area of law in most of the world (including Europe) consent can be bought--the party requesting consent gives the consenter something in exchange for consent, and will not give that thing unless consent is given. But under the rulings from some regulators that doesn't work for GDPR. Consent is apparently only considered to be freely given if withholding it would not result in any detriment such as not getting the same level of service or having to pay money for service. If regulators want to outlaw targeted advertising it would be a lot better if they just did that, instead of making consent in GDPR work differently from how it has worked for pretty much everything else pretty much everywhere for centuries.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      That's not entirely fair. The concept of duress exists and is always at odds with consent in a transactional setting. The issue is where to draw the boundary between "you freely chose to do business" and "you were coerced into accepting unfavorable terms". I'm inclined to think that "pay or be tracked" is usually the former. The issue was never that I shouldn't have to pay but rather that I wasn't given the choice in the first place.

by onli 1y ago

tossandthrow 1y ago

Big German newspapers do not need to comply under DMA. The EU focusses, rightfully, on EU macro dynamics with these laws, not how smaller outlets work. This is very much reasonable. When a platform is big, it has bigger impact, but also bigger budgets to hire legal help and bigger budgets to stay compliant. This is well established in accounting where there exists different rules depending on size (in many jurisdictions)

fp64 1y ago
What’s another example of different rules depending on size? “Content Moderation” I think? Anything outside the DMA? I think small companies get some exceptions for documentation requirements?
- agos 1y ago
  in my part of Europe there are tons: companies over a certain size might have different rules for layoffs, have to have union representatives, must pay for safety courses for the employees, must employ a certain percentage of people with disabilities...
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  It is a derivative of what is called the "Risk Based Approach" in compliance, and is widely adopted. As for companies and accounting you can look into the directive 2013/34/EU that established micro, small, and medium sized companies based on their size. These types of companies have different reporting requirements.
- eesmith 1y ago
  In the US, some laws specifically exclude small companies. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 requires 15 employees, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires 4 employees.
- intrasight 1y ago
  You could try to find some analogies but you probably won't succeed since this is clearly just targeting American big Tech
- dktp 1y ago
  G-SIB banks for example
BurningFrog 1y ago
In practice it means that only American companies end up paying large fees to the EU.
- alextingle 1y ago
  There are no fees.
- pyrale 1y ago
  It also means that not all US companies have to comply, and that the ones that do are the most competitive companies in the market, making their claim that they have trouble competing moot.

Arkanum 1y ago

I agree, except the DMA specifically only applies to companies over a specific size. I think if the German newspapers were at FB/Apple scale, in terms of number of users, then the DMA would apply (i.e. they would be designated gatekeepers or similar) and they could also be fined. Although I think pay for no ads is also a violation of GDPR maybe?

onli 1y ago
Exactly. While DMA does not apply, GDPR does. But it gets ignored and weakened by decision against the letter and the spirit of the law - which does not surprise if you realize how much power those legacy publishers hold. Not so FB, not here at least. So it's not exactly the same regulation but pretty much the same situation. I'd also be pissed.
- tzs 1y ago
  GDPR does not purport to outlaw targeted advertising. It just purports to require that the target consent. In pretty much every other area of law in most of the world (including Europe) consent can be bought--the party requesting consent gives the consenter something in exchange for consent, and will not give that thing unless consent is given. But under the rulings from some regulators that doesn't work for GDPR. Consent is apparently only considered to be freely given if withholding it would not result in any detriment such as not getting the same level of service or having to pay money for service. If regulators want to outlaw targeted advertising it would be a lot better if they just did that, instead of making consent in GDPR work differently from how it has worked for pretty much everything else pretty much everywhere for centuries.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    That's not entirely fair. The concept of duress exists and is always at odds with consent in a transactional setting. The issue is where to draw the boundary between "you freely chose to do business" and "you were coerced into accepting unfavorable terms". I'm inclined to think that "pay or be tracked" is usually the former. The issue was never that I shouldn't have to pay but rather that I wasn't given the choice in the first place.