[wickawic]

One way of thinking of legislation is to encourage/discourage behavior indirectly. Think how putting a ridiculous tax on cigarettes makes people less likely to want to use them. In this sense, the German government (and greater EU) may be completely fine in implementing these laws to discourage the presence of these types of companies operating in their jurisdiction. After all, it is hard to argue that social media as currently implemented (by large, foreign, data-hungry companies) is an inalienable right, and much easier to argue that it is a net drain on society.

[LanceH]

I think it is pretty easy to argue that someone has the freedom to put their info on a website that will use it according to the terms of service.

[pavlov]

30 years ago everyone had the freedom to choose between restaurants that allow smoking and those that don’t — except that no businesses wanted to provide the latter. Without government intervention we’d still be wading through cigarette smoke in bars.

Facebook’s reckless use of private data is a public hazard not unlike passive smoking. It’s not going to be solved by an asymmetric fake free market where customers are free to choose an option that doesn’t exist.

[perl4ever]

Are you referring to Germany or the US?

In my recollection, in the US, 30 years ago restaurants had "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. And non-smokers sometimes complained bitterly about smoke wafting into the "non-smoking" section. Which in fact led to some restaurants being all non-smoking before government intervention. The NY statewide ban on smoking in workplaces was only passed 15 years ago.

I don't know about bars 30 years ago, though. Because drinking has always been considered a "vice", I think people tended to group it with smoking and think if you're going to tolerate one, why not the other.

[fnordian_slip]

Pretty sure the parent comment is talking about Germany.

Smoking bans in restaurants and bars have made a significant difference in most states.

If I remember correctly, we had a non-binding agreement between the health ministry and our national restaurant and hotel organisation at first, but this did not change much.

Even most smokers I know agree that the laws were necessary, and that they are thankful for them because otherwise they would not go outside to smoke.

[perl4ever]

Ok, however the context of this thread is the intersection of a multi-national American business with European courts, so basing one's opinion on the German experience exclusively to claim the obvious necessity of regulation is a bit German-centric.

[pille]

I think the argument is about whether someone has the freedom not to have their info on the site. It’s well known that FB has shadow profiles with no active accounts. You’re on there whether you like it or not.

[aeorgnoieang]

> Think how putting a ridiculous tax on cigarettes makes people less likely to want to use them.

It also makes them more likely to buy them illegally.

[squiggleblaz]

Well yes, and laws against killing people make people want to murder (i.e. kill illegally with premeditation). It's incredible that people think "someone will break the law" is a justification for not having the law.