There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

UnspecificGravity ,

Must be nice living in countries where the government works for humans instead of corporations.

dx1 ,

Nice. As someone who deals with compliance I know it’s gonna be a huge pain for them to deal with, which makes it even better.

Smacks ,
@Smacks@lemmy.world avatar

I can’t wait for Facebook to take the time and energy to make two different versions of their platform. One to adhere to the EU regulations, and the other for everyone else that harvests every last bit of data.

circuitfarmer ,
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

I’d just like to thank the EU for having the data privacy laws that I suspect most Americans want but can’t have because of the fact our country is owned by corporations

dx1 ,

Honestly thinking this all week - pretty much every country in the world either voted yes or abstained on the Gaza/Israel ceasefire resolution, except for the U.S. (and a handful of others), who just coincidentally happens to have billions of dollars earmarked every year to go to Israel on the condition they spend it on arms from U.S. companies. That, and its strategic use in the region (access to fossil fuel resources), probably the whole reason.

nutsack ,

a targeted advertising ban would kill just about every social media platform

jjjalljs ,

They could just run contextual ads for much less effort and privacy violations, and still get the same or better result.

nutsack ,

why do you think that would get “the same or better result”?

jjjalljs ,

It’s how advertising worked for literally the entire history of advertising before the modern internet. You put ads for car stuff on the cars website. You don’t need to build an entire dossier on me. If I’m looking at the star wars wiki, you can be pretty confident that I’m interested in sci-fi and fantasy. You don’t need to spend billions of dollars tracking me to know that.

This is not an expert opinion so I could be wrong, but I think it would be a better system. Simpler to implement, less stalking, less “oops we didn’t show any house ads to black people” potential.

nutsack ,

these companies spend a lot of money and computation power on intelligent targeting systems because they are in fact better from a capitalist perspective

jjjalljs ,

Maybe. I guess it makes it easier for Google to sell many different ads in the same time/space. Still sucks for everyone else though.

nutsack ,

the companies optimize for profit and nothing else. you do not matter.

ArghZombies ,

But people advertise with Google precisely because they know the ads will be targeted at relevent people. If Google just sell loads of ad slots that just show to random users then that’s just a waste of money. If I’m selling motorbike helmets I don’t want to waste my money having Google show those ads to 60 year old men who only travel by bus or golfers or people who use wheelchairs.

Google won’t just sell loads of ads here, they’ll totally change their business model to something closer to the targetting approach.

jjjalljs ,

You target the ads based on the content of the page rather than the identity of the viewer. That’s how tv radio and print ads work.

dx1 ,

Nice

artic ,

Good

gregorum ,

Oh, no, boo hoo!

Lmao

Tischkante ,

They’re already starting their paid ad-free $10 a month tiers for Europe only. They’ll stop showing advertising to underage people “for now”. They’re going to flood Europe with garbage ads and maximize subscribers that way.

themurphy ,

Hopefully they’ll do that, so people would stop using their platform and move to a less money-hungry unetichal alternative.

pufferfischerpulver ,

What would the alternative be? A genuine question. I’m not a Facebook fan at all but here in Denmark so much is on Facebook. Announcements of the local playground, cafés, events, almost everyone uses messenger. It’s insane. And if it’s not on FB then it’s on Instagram.

pajn ,

Just don’t? If I need to use Facebook to interact with something I just rather spend my time on almost anything else.

Omniraptor ,

Isn’t mastodon/the fediverse sponsored by the German government? Maybe we could do something around that

pufferfischerpulver ,

I don’t know. But mastadon is hardly an alternative to Facebook or Instagram.

hiremenot_recruiter ,
@hiremenot_recruiter@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

All of those are outside activities, right? In my town we have flyers and stuff in a few different locations. At times I get annoyed I can’t find information about events online, and then I think no it’s actually a good thing.

themurphy ,

Yeah, it feels like there’s no alternative.

I only hope Facebook will be bad enough that people would even want to seek another alternative.

Otherwise I don’t see people switch.

IndefiniteBen ,

Seems to be working for YouTube!

yoz ,

I can’t fathom people willing to pay $10 for Facebook and twitter .

funktion ,

Addiction is a hell of a thing

ferralcat ,

They won’t. They’ll just sell their private data.

As someone who tried to make a living caring about people’s privacy, people don’t care. The only time they pretend to is when they need to explain why they buy the new iphone pro model yearly (but they’d turn on a dime if apple said “we’re building an ad platform! Look how pretty our ads are!”)

thethirdobject ,

I know it’s a week-old thread, but I just received the notification on the Instagram app about the subscription and I have a few thoughts. First of all, here it’s actually 12 euros. As a relatively light user - I check Instagram maybe once or twice a day and FB once a week or every two weeks, just to keep in contact with people I don’t text -, that’s a lot of money to give to Meta for those services. I’m all for paying to have content without the tracking and the ads, but not 12 euros unfortunately. Which is, I guess, why they chose such a high price.

SocialMediaRefugee ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    coffee_poops ,

    It’s still better than having data brokers monitor every single thing you do.

    erranto ,

    I will only believe it when I see it. It has been a few years since the EU is threatening a ban and meta threatening to leave the EU, so far none has committed any action.

    themurphy ,

    EU didn’t ban them because Meta complied. (the data protection bill, GDPR)

    They will comply again, unfortunately. We could use a ban.

    MonkderZweite ,

    And Google? And Google?

    fruitdealer ,

    Pretty much, Google is the targeted ad giant, not Facebook.

    Hamartiogonic ,
    @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

    And Amazon. Oh, and nowadays Microsoft has decided to join the club too.

    Xatolos ,
    @Xatolos@reddthat.com avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Hamartiogonic ,
    @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

    Oh, that’s a good point. I just thought that I have about 200 accounts and passwords, because the internet hates me.

    friend_of_satan ,

    Meta’s practices also collected protected data like race, religion, and sexual orientation. Meta disputed that it needed explicit consent, arguing that agreeing to terms of service was enough, but courts rejected this.

    Oh please let this be the beginning of a global backlash against corporate EULA’s and the start of a path towards a few well understood EULA’s, similar to how we have a few well understood FOSS licenses.

    SocialMediaRefugee ,

    And if you don’t read it they sew your mouth to someone’s ass

    amio ,

    [chuckles evilly in Norwegian]

    Damage ,

    Høh høh

    amio ,

    Well yes. Unfortunately that just reminds me of Beavis and Butthead so it's not really evil enough.

    adam_b , (edited )

    deleted_by_author

    •
    harrybo93 ,
    @harrybo93@lemmy.world avatar

    Probably not- in these days of Lemmy the way is if you don’t see it, make it! :)

    amio ,

    Basically all of them. Lemmy etc. are basically 90%+ techies, Facebook is pretty much going to be widely hated here no matter where you go.

    adam_b ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    amio ,

    If you want a specific anti-facebook thing, as others mentioned, you can just make one. It's still all over every tech-related community, though - this thread being one example.

    oce ,
    @oce@jlai.lu avatar

    Except for the thousands of hypocrites making bank by working for those companies.

    praise_idleness , (edited )

    I think it’s safe to say that lemmy as a whole is just a giant anti-[INSERT BIG TECH SHIT HERE] organization.

    Robaque ,

    *disorganisation :D

    Thorny_Insight ,

    That’s just called Lemmy

    lolcatnip ,

    Is there a gay-friendly neighborhood in San Francisco?

    WaxedWookie ,

    Watch them cry foul, threaten to pull out, start a legal fight, then go nowhere like the abusive type they are.

    nicetriangle ,

    I wish they would pull out. It's fucking ridiculous that so much of Europe is apparently just ok with using a Meta product for the defacto texting platform (WhatsApp).

    TheGreenGolem ,

    Oh, it’s Messenger in Hungary. Not that it’s any better, just saying.

    nicetriangle ,

    I mean that’s basically the same difference. It’s owned by the same company.

    TheGreenGolem ,

    That is what I said, yes.

    IndefiniteBen ,

    But Messenger has always been Facebook, so those users “chose” a Facebook product. WhatsApp users mostly signed up before Facebook bought them (getting those users is why Facebook bought WhatsApp).

    The choice to use a Facebook product was made for existing WhatsApp users by the sale. You can personally choose a different service, but then you also have to get all your contacts to make the same choice.

    Damage ,

    Eh, it’s not like we started using it because it was Meta’s. They bought it when it was already popular, and switching everyone to something else is difficult.

    nicetriangle ,

    Sure I understand the reasons why it's this way, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

    lemmyvore ,

    Yeah, WhatsApp was ported to basically every single platform that was relevant in 2009-2010 when it launched: iOS, Android, Blackberry, Symbian, Series 40 and Windows Phone. Supporting Blackberry and Nokia mobile OS which were huge at the time as well as the new smartphone OS’s was genius.

    lemming741 ,

    You left out webOS! Oh…

    realharo , (edited )

    Better than the US, at least in Europe you are not forced to buy a specific device just to be able to communicate.

    Who knows, if Facebook gets severely limited by these laws, maybe we’ll all switch to Signal or something.

    nicetriangle ,

    You’re not forced to buy a specific device there. They all text each other fine. You just don’t get fancy iMessage features if you’re on Android.

    realharo ,

    “Fancy” features like group chats, or sending pictures that don’t look like ass?

    When every single alternative (other than RCS, ironically enough) just plain works. People just text, send each other pictures, participate in group chats, and it all just works, no matter the phone, computer, whatever, there are even just plain websites for many services.

    lolcatnip ,

    You get all those features, just not with iPhone snobs who refuse to use acting but iMessage.

    lolcatnip ,

    I use Android and I exchange text messages with iPhone users all the time. They don’t use iMessage with me because my friends aren’t assholes.

    Hamartiogonic ,
    @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

    Meta is the cancer of the internet. The sooner they leave the better.

    oce ,
    @oce@jlai.lu avatar

    I hate that Meta bought it but I have to admit it is the best messaging app I have ever used for the last 10 years. I guess the enshitification will happen at some point.

    NeoNachtwaechter ,

    Watch them cry foul, threaten to pull out

    Ofc. But childish maneuvers are generally less effective in Europe where authorities are still authorities and not just the revenge actors with the bigger guns.

    WaxedWookie ,

    Yep - and they’re too big a market to abandon, meaning they’ll just roll over in the end.

    levi ,

    This is awesome but I don’t really understand.

    The purported issue is that they don’t have explicit consent for some data points. They apparently responded by saying they were going to charge a subscription.

    Why wouldn’t they just get consent? I’m sure most fb users will just agree to anything put in front of them.

    kubica ,
    @kubica@kbin.social avatar

    However, regulators have questioned whether the prices are too high to give users a real choice.

    LazaroFilm ,
    @LazaroFilm@lemmy.world avatar

    I bet there is something like what of they don’t consent? Then they have the choice to pay the subscription instead of being denied access to the site and therefore not make any money for Meta.

    MrOxiMoron ,

    It’s about the part where they can’t hide the data collection in the terms and conditions of the site. You have to have a separate clear consent step for them to collect the data.

    Krapulaolut ,

    Facebook collects data from various sites and doesn’t care if you are a user or not.

    How can you get a consent from someone who doesn’t even know facebook collects data from?

    ra1d3n ,

    This is the funny thing. You don’t. It has to be informed consent. ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

    ozymandias117 ,

    Which makes Meta’s entire business illegal in the EU, thus the lawsuits and bans

    NeoNachtwaechter ,

    Why wouldn’t they just get consent?

    That would mean to accept a possible ‘No’ as an answer. Something thoroughly new to them. They still prefer to continue without giving a damn.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •