The European data regulator has agreed to extend a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram to cover all 30 countries in the European Union and the European Economic Area, it said on Wednesday.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The ban on such advertising, which targets users by harvesting their data, is a setback for U.S. tech giant Meta Platforms (META.O), the owner of the two social media services, which has opposed efforts to curb the practice.
“On 27 October, the EDPB adopted an urgent binding decision … to impose a ban on the processing of personal data for behavioural advertising on the legal bases of contract and legitimate interest across the entire European Economic Area,” it said.
Meta on Wednesday said it had already said it would give users in the EU and the EEA the opportunity to consent, and would offer, in November, a subscription model to comply with regulatory requirements.
“EDPB members have been aware of this plan for weeks and we were already fully engaged with them to arrive at a satisfactory outcome for all parties,” said a company spokesperson.
Since Aug.7, Meta has been subject to daily fines in Norway of 1 million crowns ($90,000) for breaching users’ privacy by using their data, such as locations or browsing behaviour, for advertising, a business model common to Big Tech.
That fine will expire on Nov. 3, but Meta could risk a much heavier financial penalty, according to Tobias Judin, the head of Datatilsynet’s international section.
All data collection is a problem, because why isn’t the user getting paid. The corpos are making bank off the data, the users should get a majority of that slice.
Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That’s the price of their “free” services.
Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they’re at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.
It’s non negotiable. I’m always going to use every tool I can to block tracking networks.
If they respond by not letting me use the service… that’s fine I’ll find a competitor. But in my experience that’s pretty rare. Usually they’re happy to let people use their service even if they can’t track some people.
The only real road block I’ve ever seen is occasionally a service will ask me to prove I’m not a robot. I rarely bother with proof - just close the tab and switch to an alternative that doesn’t do that garbage.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The ban on such advertising, which targets users by harvesting their data, is a setback for U.S. tech giant Meta Platforms (META.O), the owner of the two social media services, which has opposed efforts to curb the practice.
“On 27 October, the EDPB adopted an urgent binding decision … to impose a ban on the processing of personal data for behavioural advertising on the legal bases of contract and legitimate interest across the entire European Economic Area,” it said.
Meta on Wednesday said it had already said it would give users in the EU and the EEA the opportunity to consent, and would offer, in November, a subscription model to comply with regulatory requirements.
“EDPB members have been aware of this plan for weeks and we were already fully engaged with them to arrive at a satisfactory outcome for all parties,” said a company spokesperson.
Since Aug.7, Meta has been subject to daily fines in Norway of 1 million crowns ($90,000) for breaching users’ privacy by using their data, such as locations or browsing behaviour, for advertising, a business model common to Big Tech.
That fine will expire on Nov. 3, but Meta could risk a much heavier financial penalty, according to Tobias Judin, the head of Datatilsynet’s international section.
Saved 52% of original text.
deleted by creator
Which is why this regulation is targeting the very reason why for-profit companies are bothering with data collection?
Why do you think Meta is collecting the data?
deleted by creator
An individuals data is only valuable to someone looking to harm that person
The aggregate data is what is valuable, and for that they need to be stealing it from everyone at once
All data collection is a problem, because why isn’t the user getting paid. The corpos are making bank off the data, the users should get a majority of that slice.
Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That’s the price of their “free” services.
Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they’re at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.
It’s non negotiable. I’m always going to use every tool I can to block tracking networks.
If they respond by not letting me use the service… that’s fine I’ll find a competitor. But in my experience that’s pretty rare. Usually they’re happy to let people use their service even if they can’t track some people.
The only real road block I’ve ever seen is occasionally a service will ask me to prove I’m not a robot. I rarely bother with proof - just close the tab and switch to an alternative that doesn’t do that garbage.
The coffee shop isn’t getting paid by someone besides the customer for them to drink the coffee
Unless they’re doing some pharmaceutical beta testing without us knowing, which would then be more in line with how we’re treated by meta
But what would law enforcement do without legal corporate surveillance?