[HN Gopher] EU to Facebook, 'Drop Dead'
___________________________________________________________________
EU to Facebook, 'Drop Dead'
Author : samizdis
Score : 46 points
Date : 2022-12-07 17:55 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pluralistic.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (pluralistic.net)
| nunez wrote:
| man. while this is a very good decision by the EU, my gut tells
| me that this is going to further obliterate the tech industry.
| htrp wrote:
| >Facebook will doubtless appeal, but the writing is on the wall
| here: it's the end of the line for surveillance advertising in
| Europe, an affluent territory with 500m+ residents.
|
| Left unsaid in this.... facebook will spend whatever amount of
| money it takes to win on appeal.
| edgyquant wrote:
| There is likely no amount of money that can do so. So let's
| hope they bankrupt themselves trying
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Are EU firms being scrutinized as much as American ones? Are
| these GDPR penalties on American businesses a protectionist
| measure by the EU?
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Yawn. The US is passing straight protectionist laws and most of
| the American fines for embargo violations are targeting foreign
| companies. At this point talking about reciprocity is a joke.
| If the EU had modicum of a backbone, we would straight up ban
| American companies from sensitive markets and put tariff on the
| rest.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| What EU firms? The EU is starved in big tech, and doesn't have
| nearly the international impact as Silicon Valley/ US. Many EU
| companies that get big move to the US (eg Spotify).
|
| If the EU was host to surveillance advertising I'm sure the
| narrative would be that companies should provide services
| cheaply instead for the social good. While you can have
| whatever opinions you want on invasive tracking tech, the
| reality is that the EU never had their share of profits from it
| and have always been more critical of US based companies. Yes
| they're protectionist.
|
| Edit: it can be good for consumers and good for national
| protectionism. I'm not questioning if it's good for consumers
| but it is definitely good for nationalism.
| science4sail wrote:
| This is pretty similar to a common argument that we see on
| HN: "Apple cares more about user privacy because the bulk of
| their revenue comes from selling devices, not ads".
|
| The issue here is whether Apple's pivot to services and
| advertising revenue will corrupt their privacy protections.
| Similarly, we can wonder if EU privacy protections will
| vanish if a future adtech unicorn gets born in France or
| Germany.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > The issue here is whether Apple's pivot to services and
| advertising revenue will corrupt their privacy protections
|
| Considering the way they treat FB data collection vs their
| own data collection... I'd guess yes. Apple has a not-so-
| subtle growth in ads that we've been hearing rumors about,
| and I wouldn't be surprised to see a suit from Eg.
| Facebook. Apple ads will focus on app content - which the
| biggest competition used to facebook.
|
| > Similarly, we can wonder if EU privacy protections will
| vanish if a future adtech unicorn gets born in France or
| Germany
|
| I think the bigger likelihood is that this cements the
| reality that no new ad-tech giants will emerge. If you ban
| geese, you'll never get a golden one.
| 6510 wrote:
| It's not really a question _if_ but if enough of their
| revenue comes from selling ads they _have to_ push it to
| the legal limit. Companies are suppose to make money but do
| so within the law. Of course they do have to create their
| own policies where laws are oddly missing but I imagine
| more of that kind of fuzzy logic would be the last thing
| big tech is interested in.
| clnq wrote:
| > What EU firms?
|
| All dealing with personal data, not just tech. Hotels,
| hospitals, retailers, banks, government organizations,
| insurance brokers, education institutions, and so on.
| LunaSea wrote:
| The US uses fines of EU companies as a strategic tool so I
| think that the EU hitting US companies with GDPR fines is fair.
| mrtksn wrote:
| They are. Not only companies but government organizations are
| fined too.
|
| You can see it here: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
| tinalumfoil wrote:
| While it's possible the US just has more tech companies, I
| think it should be pointed out the top fines here are to
| Amazon Inc, Meta Platforms Inc, Meta Platforms Inc, WhatsApp
| Inc (owned by Meta), Google LLC, Facebook Ireland Ltd, Google
| Ireland Ltd and Google.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Top fines are still American but definitely far from
| exclusive.
| samizdis wrote:
| I don't know of any EU corporates with the scale, reach and
| depth of US corporates such as Meta, Google, Twitter et al.
| Their dominance globally is going to prompt GDPR scrutiny. If
| an EU corporate were to grow to relative relevance, I'd expect
| similar scrutiny. I see no protectionism, largely because
| there's nothing to protect.
| hobbitstan wrote:
| I'm quite impressed that Facebook has lasted this long with its
| business model. A combination of being based out of the US, where
| legislators look the other way if jobs are being created and
| taxes paid, and the snail-like movement of European law makers
| and enforcers, allowed companies like Facebook to become highly
| profitable spy machines.
|
| It was never going to last, but it lasted far longer than I
| thought it would. Just look at TikTok as an example. A literal
| spy app by communist China that experts have been warning about
| for years, and it's still functioning with little resistance.
| Amazing.
| profstasiak wrote:
| I wish there was one button way to opt out of behaviorally
| addicting features. Maybe next big regulation comming from EU.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I think it's labeled "uninstall".
|
| At some point people have to take responsibility for their own
| actions and realize government regulators aren't their sugar
| daddies in charge of making sure they don't do anything self
| destructive. If that's what sugar daddies do, no clue?
| nunez wrote:
| there's a difference between "taking responsibility for your
| own actions" and "designing a platform that is expressly
| designed to be addicting enough to subvert that
| responsibility"
|
| chief example: infinite scroll.
|
| why does content need to scroll infinitely other than to keep
| eyeballs on the site and make it easy to lose track of time?
| deadly_syn wrote:
| Unfortunately, I personally dont think the average person is
| that capable of self regulation at this point. Social media
| culture has become a cornerstone for genz and late
| millenials, and is designed to make these dark patterns work
| on you better.
|
| Meaning in future this issue might actuslly compound. And i
| dont think any of this is malicious intentionally. I think
| its just self serving assholes exploiting whatever gets them
| what they want.
| com wrote:
| The argument is akin to the bans on toxic chemicals in
| domestic products. It worked for lead, mercury, asbestos and
| a host of other things. These have saved many, many lives.
|
| Similar rules around predatory lending, predatory insurance,
| mandatory all-in air flight pricing have all done wonders for
| consumers' sanity and improved market offerings enormously.
| otikik wrote:
| Why not? I'll take that over them writing laws that only
| benefit the wealthy and big corps any day of the week.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| How can we talk about uninstalling when Facebook has shadow
| profils based on your friends and monitor your traffic
| outside of Facebook without you agreeing to it via the share
| buttons? And don't tell me you can use a complex technical
| solution to avoid it. The EU is legislating for the average
| user, not people who can block JS.
| sorokod wrote:
| Uninstall anyway. Shadow profile or not, uninstall.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| Why is Facebook any worse than Google?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-07 23:02 UTC)