Meta promised to ask users whether they want to opt-in, but they never did, so now they are banning these behaviours until they have come up with a better way of handling this.
Furthermore, Meta wanted those who opt-out of data sharing to have to pay money, which is most likely not legal.
I really don't get this attitude. I 100% endorse everyone's right to uninstall every Meta app and never use them, and to block their on-page trackers on third-party websites with an adblocker, all that. But the notion that there should be some sort of EU-protected "Right To Use Facebook For Free"... nah. Using the apps inherently shares data with the company whose servers you're using. Don't like it, that's fine, there's only one correct recourse: Don't use it.
Also, if Facebook's users were all paying for it (and all its competitors), there would be no advertising on it, and incentives in social media would be aligned much better. The government which requires companies to provide their service "for free" would be actively working against that better world by pushing the ad-supported model, which they clearly hate, as the only one.
Let me offer a counterpoint: if there is money on the table, corporations will get it. Example, you pay for cable, and still get ads. You pay for Netflix and still get Netflix ads in the app. All paid aps harvest and sell your behaviour data. Greed does not permit that money be left on the table.
Ah yes, much like how cable TV has no ads on it, right? Or newspapers. Or how Microsoft Windows has no ads on it because you paid for the OS? Or like how smart TVs aren't spying on you because you bought them…
If there's money to be made by spying and putting ads, it will be done, no matter if you pay for it or not.
And that's the reason why it is probably illegal: if you accept the cookies, they track you, if you refuse cookies and pay, you have to agree to their terms and conditions which allow them to track you as well. Head they win, tail you lose.
I don't mind this business model as much as some, but I think you're arguing the wrong thing here.
That's not a problem. The problem is that these companies share it with others. That's what requires consent and Meta isn't asking for it and does it anyway.
Facebook can show as many ads it wants. It can even show as many ads as it wants without asking for user consent.
Facebook have a right to charge a subscription fee. They have a right to ask you to provide your personal data. They don't have the right to charge their users a privacy tax.
You are missing the part where the user does not know that his data (everything he does) is collected and sold on the open market. Just read a privacy policy. Nowhere is written: we will record everything that you send and your behaviour and sell it. They say they might collect some usage data and what you post and might share it to "third parties".
I would _love_ if i have to pay for this crap. But hey, i already paid for Android and Google is taking my data without any shame, so i'm skeptical that this will bring an improvement.
Ironically, I've posted there a couple of times in a way that (barely) went against their own groupthink and got downvoted like crazy.
My personal theory is that we have been mingling with AI generated content long before Chat GPT was revealed to the public, at least in the last 10-15 years. And that Chat GPT was not the first on the block manipulating people with the technology. I just think this based on the fact that the NSA was spying on people long before whistle blowers revealed it, same has to go for AI manipulation by various government agencies and non government "bad actors". We may get confirmation of this within the next 10-15 years if someone blows a whistle.
Are we talking about MSM here? Because those doing it are real human users, some of them quite famous.
More details on the temporary ban: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/te...
The US has tons of strange regulations like banning car manufacturers from selling cars themselves without a middleman or dictating what kind of showerheads are allowed to be sold.
I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol).
"If i travel to the eu as an American does that mean it’s illegal to track me while present in their territory?"
Yes.
"Would I be able to sue them"
You can sue any time but only makes sense if meta does something illegal.
"and which country would be most favorable for the largest payout if so?"
If Meta breaks the EU law you would likely have to sue in the country were you were present. Could also be that you have to sue Meta in an EU country were they have an office. (Ireland? Luxembourg? Dunno).
"I’m happy to write their support team an email letting them know my intentions to travel (lol)."
This is a great idea, unfortunately there are no punitive damages in most EU countries. Your payment would be tiny.
One could probably sue them in the country the behavior was documented.
The equivalent case would be if A assaulted B in Norway and flee to Chicago. B could report the crime and sue in the UK, get a legal ruling, and the Norway legal branch would then deal with the US branch to bring something out of the situation (compensation, equivalent punishment in the US, extradition etc.)
In short, no.
The GDPR is about protecting EU citizens, and only if you reside in the EU (even as a US citizen), the GDPR will be relevant for you.
But Meta is in a very special position. They have enough user data to pinpoint ads without having to trade data with anyone. They are large enough that they can easily manage all their ad sales in-house.
They if anyone should be interested in really strict regulation. Because if everyone just has to use the data they have in house for good reason (Facebook does have my age, city, interests etc and I accept that!) then facebook has an extreme advantage in advertising.
Could the ad networks scan the site instead and use the content on the pages to determine likely target audiences? You could still do ad networks, and target audience, based on the site that they are currently on.
The current version of adtech is pretty damaging to society as a whole and it's getting increasingly worse. Apparently nothing online or content related is able to generate enough revenue to keep itself afloat without ads. Manufactures of TVs and cars are collecting and selling data to increase profit, but are themselves buying ads, making it akin to a pyramid scheme. Maybe we need to start taking a look at the industries that are heavily depending on selling ad space to survive and question if they need to exist, or should be transformed into actual products.
Isn't this going to be a problem? The Irish DPA has been known to be in bed with big tech in the past, considering Ireland's entire economy is based around being a tax haven for Big Tech, and importing tech workers with the highest EU salaries taxed at 52% for the highest bracket
https://web.archive.org/web/20230609051152/https://www.irish...
> "The Norwegian Privacy Council's decision is an instruction to the Irish Data Protection Authority to place a permanent ban on Meta's European head office in Ireland. Once this has happened, the ban will come into effect."
Either Norway is banning something on their own, or they follow EU regulations, but I don't think a 'Norwegian ban gets extended to here and there'. I have the feeling stuff gets mixed up a little here.
I think any kind of enforcement against Meta has to go through Ireland because of that. The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action.
I know, that's why the order of things mentioned in the article feels out of line.
laws will not be enough to stop this
we have always been dependant on whistleblowers and ethical hackers and now, for just a few years, we are at the tipping point where they are the last line of defence. Corruption has almost irreversibly disabled the playing field on which the civil society can act as a red team to corporate visions and strategies.
Something else is always in attempt and laws are an absolute must but whether either of the many measures work, lies in the hands of whistleblowers and hackers.
back in the 80's Norway had a ban on cigarette advertising, so Marlboro launched a clothing/lifestyle brand, blue jeans and other cowboy style clothes. With their competitors hobbled by the advertising ban, perhaps that was even more effective.
Household consumption as a % of GDP in Norway is 30% compared to 68% in the US. The Norwegian public sector produces 70% of Norway's GDP. You're underestimating to what extent these policies reflect real differences in how countries are run. In the good old USA Facebook et al are allowed to do what they do because people keeping those credit cards busy is what keeps the economy up. Doesn't work that way in Norway and a decent chunk of Europe.
When Europeans come to the US, they largely behave like Americans, they fit right in. What Europeans need to stop doing is telling themselves that they're different.
USA is 42% on the same measure.
So, famous alcohol brands launched soda water, mineral water, and even glassware. One company has music CDs. They advertise those instead.
Either “Entire” shouldn’t be there, as Norway isn’t in the EU, or “EU” should be “European Economic Area” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area).
My Norwegian is almost nonexistent, but I think it’s the latter. It makes more sense to my understanding of law (why else would a Norwegian claim extend to EU countries?) and the Norwegian title mentions “EU/EØS”, and that matches the Norwegian name of that Wikipedia page (https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EØS)
If so, it also would apply to Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Nevertheless, in cases where EEA countries are part of union law, decisions can be appealed to EU courts, and decisions there will apply to the whole area.
At least I think that’s how it works, it’s a bit messy at times.
As for other central EU features like open market, currency, sovereignty (particularly naval), freedom of movement, we are on the outside of the union and I wouldn't sloppily consider or phrase us an EU country.
