Meta see the regulatory situation in the EU and UK as a potentially existential risk. They know what they are doing is bad and lobbying is their number one tactic. They are at the "cigarette company" level of trying to prevent regulation of a business model that is ultimately at risk of being legislated out of existence.
>Fine for Meta more than tenfold from € 28 million to € 390 million. Third case on WhatsApp pending.
Starting to get into a range for the fine that makes sense. Give it another tenfold increase and I'm content.
If Europe wants more ethical tech, they should make an honest effort to create an environment that supports that. I.e., invest in their own tech industry.
> Politicians don't hunt elephants, but they will share the elephants you catch with the people who voted for them.
Along these lines, we'd have something like
> Europeans don't invent new tech, but they will regulate the tech you invented.
As a fellow European, I struggle to feel any pride or happiness about this.
You see it play out with European companies too, where they exploit populations where either there's lack of regulation or where they can bribe the officials. Profit, see what you can get away with. That's just on the legal front (like this case), not the moral or ethical front.
I do not like these sensationalized titles on HN.
That is the point.
Edited for you: you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting personalized ads
I'd guess that even now, just allowing a simple 'pay money or <smooth lawyery wording for happiness that incidentally eliminates privacy>' choice would just lead to the same issues again. But it's absolutely like a code smell that tells me there's a more nuanced option somewhere that could be better. However, I'm glad they didn't let perfect be the enemy of good in this case.
You can still have ads on your site. GDPR does not preclude you from using ads on your site. GDPR doesn't care if you have ads on your site. Nothing in GDPR prevents you from having ads on your site.
How more clear can I write this?
Stop spreading lies and bullshit.
It’s a BS feature and they might as well default to not let apps track. Is anyone going to click yes?
If they give the choice, they can put out real-world proof out there that nobody wants them, as demonstrated by low single-digit acceptance rates.
They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in.
This story shows the DPC for what it is: a regulator that was captured from the beginning. The idea that the DPC might sue EPDB is astonishing and shocking.
This comes as I read of Irish plans for a watered-down Northern Ireland Protocol. That would certainly please the UK government; but it risks subverting EU law. If the Irish government is bent on circumventing EU law, perhaps they should just get out of the EU.
Morals and ethics so easily get tossed out the window when nerds feel like their end of year bonus could be marginally threatened.
Facebook was threatening to leave EU earlier, I wonder if that will make them act on those threats.
Either way, it's great that you are comfortable with Facebook's tracking and even get value out of it - in which case you will be able to opt-in once the changes required by this ruling get implemented. Those who don't feel comfortable with it can opt-out. Everyone wins!
I am not a hat wearer but now I might become one because I saw some cool hats I like. This was by accident because I wasn't in the market for hats.
I don't believe privacy exists when using modern tech which is why I make all my Facebook posts public. I don't ever want to kid myself that what I am staying stays private to only my friends and family. I have not encountered a downside to Facebook tracking, but maybe you can point one out.
> Or voluntarily opt into getting tracked?
Yes, this would be fine with me
> Meta is now prohibited to bypass the GDPR via a clause in the terms and conditions. Meta has to get "opt-in" consent for personalized advertisement and must provide users with a "yes/no" option
How is that supposed to work? FB is required to provide a service at a loss? If I were FB I'd work to actually make a yes/no contract - yes, or get lost. You can use EU social networks - oh wait, there aren't any! I guess in line with other EU decisions, EU citizens can switch to VKontakte :D
For example, manufacturers are required to avoid use of harmful substances, and follow health and safety regulations, even though it'd be more profitable not to. Sweatshops and child labor would be more profitable, but these business models were rejected by the governments too.
Ofc if I/FB choose to shut down or alter my service for everyone under these conditions, the other angle is that EU govt has decided that it knows better than mere proles who want to explicitly consent to the exchange. It's less like manufacturers avoiding harmful substances, and more like e.g. govt of China requiring Apple to alter Maps to display "correct" information under threat of a ban.
Yes. Although how much of a loss it would be is debatable. Unless you upload lots of media, the costs of providing you the service top out at a few cents a month, so it can trivially be subsidised by even untargeted ads.
> You can use EU social networks - oh wait, there aren't any!
Maybe the long-term objective is that we actually get some social networks that are sustainable without misusing people's personal data?
I guess Facebook's solution could be a pop-up asking whether you want to continue using it as before or if you want to deny access to your personal data and pay $50 a month.
This has been ruled as being valid by courts.
I don't see a problem paying for Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. I used to pay for WhatsApp back in the day.
Heck, I even pay for WinRAR.
Probably they will go for "Please choose between 50 horrible autoplaying spammy ads or 4 personalized"
*without consent
It's perfectly acceptable under GDPR to do targeted advertising, as long as you have a user consent to it.
China: I'll bring the hardware!
US: I'll bring the software!
EU: I'll bring the lawyers!
So why don't you address the underlying issue instead of denigrating the meme? If you have something to say about it, that is.
But what you say is actually accurate, the globalized world (excepting russia) has settled to these roles for these 3 players. EU is more of a legacy player without an army (or strong production base) that still "upholds ideals" and sells this image for worldwide PR. But you see where this ends up, countries bribing EU politicians to improve their world PR by association.
When calculating fines under the GDPR the supervisory authorities have to take in to account whether the violation was intentional, previous violations and compliance with previous orders.
In other words, if they don't stop now the fines will get bigger.
