[alkonaut]

I don’t mind ads. I mind tracking. Basically my demand is that Facebook show me dumb enough ads and use only data I consent to. Im ok with my age and gender and other things being used to target an ad - that’s information I already willingly gave them. But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram they crossed a line regardless of what terms and conditions I accepted.

If ads that work without spying on users don’t pay enough to pay their data center bills then they should shut them down. I’m more than happy to vote for politicians that ensure this. I’m not comfortable saying “I’ll just not use services from companies X and Y because they use shady ads”.

[wcarron]

> But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram they crossed a line regardless of what terms and conditions I accepted.

Uh, no, they haven't. YOU are responsible for visiting websites and using their services under terms and conditions you agreed to. YOU are responsible for and capable of not using sites do not agree with. You are getting a service in exchange for being tracked and shown ads. If you don't like it, delete your account, or fix your damn /etc/hosts file to block the (admittedly overwhelming) number of domains FB uses for these purposes.

I'm no fan of Fb. I deleted my account, blocked thousands of domains in my /etc/hosts file, use multiple ad-blockers, etc. etc. Fuckerberg going to prison would make me giddy. But, you don't get to have your mystical cake and eat it, too. You don't dictate how they run, or what data they collect, or how they use it. Get real, dude. Take responsibility for your actions. You agreed to what they do when you read(skipped) the terms of service/privacy policy when you signed up.

[JohnFen]

This argument would carry more weight if the terms of service and privacy policies were both complete and written in a way that ordinary non-lawyer people could actually understand.

However, 90+% of the time, they're not.

[wcarron]

Eh, if I sign up for a credit card for "0% APR!!!" and then don't read the fine print that it's an introductory offer, isn't that a result of my action (or lack thereof)?

That they use fine print or dense legalese doesn't invalidate the fact that it was there for the end-user to read and agree or disagree with. I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them. They're verbose, not arcane.

[JohnFen]

> I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them.

I find exactly the opposite.

> They're verbose, not arcane.

They're both.

The problem is that people aren't lawyers and don't read them with a lawyer's eye. This frequently leads people to think that the terms are saying things that they aren't saying (by design). People tend to think that these policies are more favorable to the user than they actually are.

[alkonaut]

> You don’t dictate how they run

Isn’t that what I did when my elected representatives pushed GDPR through though?

The reason there are so few successful services with sensible advertising is simple: it’s too easy to fool people to accepting terrible ads that pay more.

I don’t think users should be expected to know how to edit their hosts file to preserve their integrity. Nor do I think they can be expected to read the ToS (get real).

I want regulation to ensure that idiots cannot agree to ToS that endanger their information or integrity. The GDPR and similar laws, if properly enforced, goes a long way towards that. I especially like the idea that access to the service can’t be conditioned on data collection.

[wcarron]

> I don’t think users should be expected to know how to edit their hosts file to preserve their integrity.

Ok, that's fair.

> Nor do I think they can be expected to read the ToS (get real).

I am being real. ToS and Privacy Policies can be, and often are, legally binding. Do I expect people to read them? No. Are they legally subject to whatever they agreed to, regardless of whether or not they actually read it? Yes. The user agreed to the contact. They clicked the damn button. They can deal with the consequences of their haste and/or stupidity.

> I want regulation to ensure that idiots cannot agree to ToS that endanger their information or integrity.

That's a bit different than what your originally wrote, which seemed to be less like a desire for regulation to address this and more like a a desire for a new ToS between FB and you, a singular end-user.

FWIW, I'm also a proponent of the GDPR and CCPA. But I also don't think people can just scot-free break or circumvent contacts they agreed to. Where is the personal accountability for the user? It can't just _not_ exist.