[ivanbakel]

The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads.

GDPR should be used for exactly this purpose - it is a protection against companies collecting and using personal data in this way. Facebook has the choice to show ads, just not personalised ones. What is specifically being argued about is that Facebook tried to claim ads were a contractual service (thus exempting them from rules on personal data) - but transparently they aren't.

And if Facebook can't survive in a future where it is forced to respect personal privacy, then may its death be ever sooner.

[lokar]

And if FB is not feasible without personalized ads, no user should be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

[ivanbakel]

That would be called consent, which is exactly what FB is not collecting.

[pwinnski]

If an illegal operation exists, should users be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

User choice has no bearing on the issue. The activity is either legal or not, and it should not be legal.

[weinzierl]

> The article is not against ads generally, but instead Facebook's attempt to circumvent GDPR to continue showing personalised ads.

And yet Facebook is not alone doing this. While almost all the medium and small sized sites ask for consent nowadays the big players just seem to be immune. My go to example is spiegel.de which is one of Germany's largest newspapers. Full of trackers, full of personalized ads and I have never seen them asking for my consent.