[lzaaz]

If they can't show good ads in Europe, I assume that they will lose money and eventually have to close down here.

I think that users have a right to know what happens to their data. But this is not a consent or information screen, this is the end of it. Europe tells us they do this for our own good, so we can own our data, but then they make it illegal for us to exchange our data for someone's service. Basically they think they know better than us what to do with our data: it is the opposite of freedom.

Hopefully this will teach the users to vote better. Oh wait, we can't elect EU officials directly.

[JKCalhoun]

If Facebook were to suddenly go away we, all of us, would suddenly find ourselves plunged back into that time before Facebook even existed. Does anyone else remember what it was like then?

Oh, that's right — those were good times.

;-)

[CrazyEmi]

It was indeed.

But still I have to admire how it ramped up tech adoption in general population.

[wpietri]

> it is the opposite of freedom

Your particular concept of freedom doesn't account for asymmetries in information and power. The average person does not have the time or knowledge to truly understand the implicit bargain that goes with using Facebook. Partly because Facebook is very aggressive in keeping users in the dark. But even if Facebook were totally open about everything, people just don't have the time to independently investigate every company they do business with.

What your high-theory freedom means in practice for the average person is the freedom to be exploited. That's how it went in the early 1900s before we had labor laws and anti-trust laws. Did hundreds of millions of workers lose the freedom to work overtime for free? Undoubtedly. Are they missing it? Generally not.

[martin_a]

> but then they make it illegal for us to exchange our data for someone's service

They (the EU) don't and I don't understand why you would understand it that way.

[lzaaz]

>EU privacy regulators say Facebook and Instagram must not force users to agree to tracking by putting this requirement into their terms.

In the context of apps like Facebook or Instagram, which make money by tracking us to show us personalised ads, this is like saying that it is illegal for supermarkets to charge us for groceries, even if customers wanted to pay for them. What happens next? The supermarket closes, evidently. And this is a win for whom? Not the supermarket, and not the clients. Everybody loses.

[mopsi]

> this is like saying that it is illegal for supermarkets to charge us for groceries, even if customers wanted to pay for them.

More like banning the import of substandard and dangerous electronics, even if customers really want to plug their phone into a 50-cent charger from Aliexpress - because side-effects bear too high cost on the society.

[martin_a]

Just show unpersonalized ads then. That's all.

[lzaaz]

That's precisely what I'm saying. I am an adult, and if I want to pay for a service with MY data, I should be able to consent to that. I can't, so this regulation doesn't respect me and my rights.

[martin_a]

You can, it's just not the undeniable default anymore.

[alt227]

I think you misunderstood this. They are not being forced against showing personalised ads, they are being forced to give you an active choice. You are still welcome to choose to let them track you.

[lzaaz]

I think you misunderstood my answer. Using my analogy, this is like forcing the supermarket to give me a choice: pay for groceries or take them for free. This means the supermarket is forced to close because most people will take them for free.

[hedora]

So, to take the grocery store example to the extreme, now you get to choose between generic and premium oatmeal.

World ending in 3, 2, 1,...

[netrus]

It's more like forbidding Kellogg's to put toys into their cereal boxes. MAYBE they cannot sell sugary cereals to kids without, but most likely they still can. Only one way to find out :)

[criddell]

I wouldn’t assume they will no longer be able to show good ads. Ads don’t require tracking to work and there’s plenty of ad-targetable signal that Facebook users give the platform while using the service.

For example, if you join a cycling-in-Berlin group, they can still use that information to show you ads for protein bars and lederhosen.

[hedora]

But that would lower the ad brokers' profit margins!

It would allow producers of quality content to charge a premium for their ad impression inventory.

Careful, this is a slippery slope: Soon you'll be arguing some other anti-monopoly nonsense, like for open access journals, or that lederhosen manufacturers should be able to sell off Amazon at a discount.

[ceejayoz]

> If they can't show good ads in Europe, I assume that they will lose money and eventually have to close down here.

They can't do it based on external browsing activity.

In-Facebook likes, comments, group memberships, clicks, etc. sound like they'd still be applicable, and give pretty good targeting info for a lot of folks.

[tzs]

It sounds like it covers in-Facebook activity:

> If upheld, though, this decision will make it much harder for Facebook and other platforms to show users ads based on what they click, like, share and watch within these platforms' own apps.

> While Meta is already allowing users to opt out of personalizing ads based on data from other websites and apps, it has never given any such option for ads based on data about user activity on its own platforms.

[someweirdperson]

They could offer a user-paid alternative. Given the value of data, the alternative price in money might be driving some users out though.

[InCityDreams]

I'll assume you're British. You can't elect your Prime Minister directly.

Probably the same in several other Eu parliaments, too.