Tech Companies Face Billions in Fines Under EU Content Rules (bloomberg.com) 124
The world's biggest technology companies could face billions of dollars in fines for breaches of new European Union legislation, details of which are expected to be agreed upon by lawmakers as soon as Friday. From a report: The landmark Digital Services Act is the EU's answer to what it sees as a failure by tech giants to combat illegal content on their platforms. Noncompliance could cost companies as much as 6% of their global annual sales when the rules go into effect as early as 2024.
Failures could be extremely costly. Based on their reported 2021 annual sales, Amazon, for instance, could face a theoretical fine of as much as 26 billion euros ($28 billion) for future noncompliance with the DSA, or Google as much 14 billion euros. Facebook whistle-blower Frances Haugen said the DSA could represent a "global gold standard" for regulating social media companies. After more than a year of internal wrangling, key rules expected to be announced include:
1. A ban on using sensitive data such as race or religion for targeting ads
2. A ban on targeting any ads to minors
3. A ban on so-called "dark patterns," specifically tactics to push people into consenting to online tracking.
Failures could be extremely costly. Based on their reported 2021 annual sales, Amazon, for instance, could face a theoretical fine of as much as 26 billion euros ($28 billion) for future noncompliance with the DSA, or Google as much 14 billion euros. Facebook whistle-blower Frances Haugen said the DSA could represent a "global gold standard" for regulating social media companies. After more than a year of internal wrangling, key rules expected to be announced include:
1. A ban on using sensitive data such as race or religion for targeting ads
2. A ban on targeting any ads to minors
3. A ban on so-called "dark patterns," specifically tactics to push people into consenting to online tracking.
Easy to make hard laws in other countries industri (Score:3, Interesting)
I am no fan of Social Media and Tech companies practices, they have been playing "I am not responsible for user content" game for too long now.
However, Europe lack of major Tech and Social Media Companies does put a question on all their laws, and if said laws would still be in effect if there were major industries in Europe in those areas. Because as much the "I am not responsible for user content" is a bad excuse, it also isn't an easy fix to the problem.
Good intentions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the past couple of decades, NASA has been investing in spacecraft to conduct up-close examinations of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Now it’ll likely be Uranus’ turn.
Weird to come to Slashdot in 2022 and see people celebrating the culture that formed the present day web.
Re:Easy to make hard laws in other countries indus (Score:5, Insightful)
Always funny how Europe always goes after a US company as a target, while with Chinese or European companies, the EU looks the other way, or at most does a wrist slap.
Bullshit. European and Asian companies get large fines as well, when they deserve them. Here are some examples: Philips, Panasonic and LG were fined 1.92 billion dollars [reuters.com] for cartel behavior. French drug maker Servier was fined over 582 million dollars [bloomberg.com] for delaying the release of a cheap generic hypertension drug. Spanish telecom company Telefonica was fined 207 million dollars [wsj.com] for anti-competitive practices.
I think American companies get more fines because they're used to the American business climate, where they pretty much have their own way. In Europe laws are more consumer friendly and law enforcement is stronger and less corrupt. As a result, those American companies get slapped when they try the same shenanigans they get away with in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Always funny how Europe always goes after a US company as a target, while with Chinese or European companies, the EU looks the other way, or at most does a wrist slap.
Bullshit. European and Asian companies get large fines as well, when they deserve them. Here are some examples: Philips, Panasonic and LG were fined 1.92 billion dollars [reuters.com] for cartel behavior. French drug maker Servier was fined over 582 million dollars [bloomberg.com] for delaying the release of a cheap generic hypertension drug. Spanish telecom company Telefonica was fined 207 million dollars [wsj.com] for anti-competitive practices.
I think American companies get more fines because they're used to the American business climate, where they pretty much have their own way. In Europe laws are more consumer friendly and law enforcement is stronger and less corrupt. As a result, those American companies get slapped when they try the same shenanigans they get away with in the USA.
What you've got to realise is that a lot of Americans see US regulators and lawmakers as tools to punish foreign companies and means to prevent them from competing freely. So they assume that every other country is the same. Many cannot conceive that the EU applies the same laws to EU companies as they do to non-EU companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't great, but being under the boot of China (and thus Russia) isn't going to be exactly an increase in personal freedom or quality of life.
WTF are you talking about? So because there are greater evils in the world, Europe should swallow everything the US throws at it no questions asked?
Even more ironic is that Google, Microsoft, et. al. pretty much win against the laws in European courts, or at the minimum, get the fine greatly reduced.
So that should be what, an argument for not challenging,regulating these companies?
Anti-Americanism sells,
And the US stinks. Get over it.
Wish Europe would stop the kangaroo court stuff.
How is this issue decided by a kangaroo court? You do know that Europe and the countries that form it have their own courts, laws and do not fall under US laws?
The fact that the US denies some of these courts, mainly the ones that want to prosecute t
Re: Easy to make hard laws in other countries indu (Score:2)
Re: Easy to make hard laws in other countries indu (Score:2)
Towards Russia, the drums are beating incredibly loud. With nuances being thrown out of the window.
They could havre changed their ways (Score:5, Insightful)
These rules are not to damage companies but to protect the consumer using them. So I am very much OK to charge them for their wilful non-compliance with known rules.
Re: (Score:1)
These rules are not to damage companies but to protect the consumer using them.
As an American, it just looks kind of funny to see the EU actually worrying about.. ads. We just ignore them. There's always some more pressing issue to rage over (culture wars, bridges falling down, a housing bubble, inflation, healthcare costs) on this side of the pond.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
its not about ads it about mass tracking which is used for ads but also used in more nefarious ways, go watch a youtube video on data brokers, then go look up how companies use this mass harvested data to manipulate people in all sorts of ways.
and you just *THINK* you ignore the ads companies keep buying them because they work, thinking they have no effect on you because you're too smart for ads to manipulate you is a large source of their power.
Re: (Score:2)
We just ignore them.
You think you ignore them, but you don't. That's just the advertising people being smarter then you.
Re: (Score:2)
You think you ignore them, but you don't. That's just the advertising people being smarter then you.
Until they get the ads in dreams [youtube.com] thing figured out, I think adblock is doing its job.
Yes, I do still see ads on the mobile Facebook app, but the targeting algorithm is laughably bad. Heck, I'll open it now and scroll through a few sponsored ads:
Amazon (Who doesn't already know that Amazon exists?)
T-Mobile (Already my wireless provider, after they bought Sprint.)
MRCOOL do-it-yourself mini-split air conditioners (I work in the trade and can buy contractor grade equipment directly from the local Johnstone Sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you use AdBlock, which means that you actually agree with the EU when it comes to ads. But lets screw every one that doesn't have an adblocker should we?
With such a simple resolution, why wouldn't our superiors simply write an adblock type app that only allows European ads through, and blocks the rest of the world? Make it mandatory, and in true EU fashion fine anyone not using your EU approved app.
Re: (Score:2)
With such a simple resolution, why wouldn't our superiors simply write an adblock type app that only allows European ads through, and blocks the rest of the world? Make it mandatory, and in true EU fashion fine anyone not using your EU approved app.
It's profoundly stupid of you to think we want to block US ads and let through Euro ads.
We don't want that level of marketing from any market party, period.
Re: (Score:2)
With such a simple resolution, why wouldn't our superiors simply write an adblock type app that only allows European ads through, and blocks the rest of the world? Make it mandatory, and in true EU fashion fine anyone not using your EU approved app.
It's profoundly stupid of you to think we want to block US ads and let through Euro ads. We don't want that level of marketing from any market party, period.
Then block them all I don't care one bit about what EU citizens see - you claim I am stupid - I merely suggest fixes that are better than the EU's inability to fix their own problems so the world conforms to their desires. Block what you want. I don't care - but y'all are simply incompetent at the same time as spouting that others are stupid.
Y'all claim to be superior to us, yet you cannot fix simple problems. You believe that the world owes th eEU to be what the EU demands. I think it's a leftover from
Re: (Score:2)
Then block them all I don't care one bit about what EU citizens see
Obviously you care otherwise you wouldn't have written your previous post.
I merely suggest fixes that are better than the EU's inability to fix their own problems so the world conforms to their desires.
I think you don't understand how the world works. If these companies want to do business in Europe they should comply with European laws.
We fixed the problem by writing law, not by abolishing the advertisement market.
You believe that the world owes th eEU to be what the EU demands.
No, we simply believe that if you want to play on our turf you have to play by our rules. It is a simple concept to understand. But you're showing great difficulty grasping it.
Y'all claim to be superior to us, yet you cannot fix simple problems. You believe that the world owes th eEU to be what the EU demands. I think it's a leftover from your violent past and wishes that others bow to your demands. And before you run off in a huff, there is a boatload of citations about what you Europeans love to do to others.
Oh jesus fucking H christ. Did those evil Eur
Re: (Score:2)
Then block them all I don't care one bit about what EU citizens see
Obviously you care otherwise you wouldn't have written your previous post.
Only thing I care about is that the EU is flexing it's fine muscles to control others.
I merely suggest fixes that are better than the EU's inability to fix their own problems so the world conforms to their desires.
I think you don't understand how the world works. If these companies want to do business in Europe they should comply with European laws. We fixed the problem by writing law, not by abolishing the advertisement market.
I understand fully. I have absolutely zero concerns from our end - If the EU doesn't want to see something on the internet - they can shut the spigot off, and deny their citizens whatever they think needs banned. I do understand the European mindset of demanding a conformity, and their wishes to impose it on the world. Shut the internet off. Geoblock anything coming from the USA.rewrite history if you like - speaking of t
Re: (Score:2)
I understand fully.
Not really. Not even a little.
If the EU doesn't want to see something on the internet - they can shut the spigot off, and deny their citizens whatever they think needs banned.
But it was the citizens that asked for it, smartass.
And you seem to be unable to grasp the simple and 100 percent effective solution. Shut us off
But you are the only one who wants this solution. US companies don't want this solution. Neither do the EU countries.
So you're talking shit.
You claim I can't grasp something
Well, you clearly demonstrate you don't by offering a solution no one wants.
The problem with your preferred approach is that it continually shifts the playing field, and it imposes fines on things that you really do not control.
Ooh, boo hoo, changing playing fields. But these companies themselves change the playing field in major ways. We just think that they change it too much in their own favor. They're literally begging for being reig
Re: (Score:2)
It was an observation. You really do sound like you have your dick stepped on by the EU.
Wow - you are obsessed with that thing. twice now!
Sorry, long distance relationships don't work, and my wife probably wouldn't approve. But I'm flattered, so there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
With such a simple resolution, why wouldn't our superiors simply write an adblock type app that only allows European ads through, and blocks the rest of the world? Make it mandatory, and in true EU fashion fine anyone not using your EU approved app.
Because none of this is about banning non EU ads. Also please inform me which app I'm as a EU citizen will be fined for not using. You seem to live under a great misunderstanding on how things work over here, yet somehow argue as if you actually knew anything. Puzzling.
Re: (Score:2)
With such a simple resolution, why wouldn't our superiors simply write an adblock type app that only allows European ads through, and blocks the rest of the world? Make it mandatory, and in true EU fashion fine anyone not using your EU approved app.
Because none of this is about banning non EU ads. Also please inform me which app I'm as a EU citizen will be fined for not using. You seem to live under a great misunderstanding on how things work over here, yet somehow argue as if you actually knew anything. Puzzling.
Misunderstanding? Europeans do not create or innovate. They become outraged by something they see in the intertoobz, and they try to extract money, and demand the forbidden content be excised, lest it do harm to their delicate sensibilities. Pretty much sums it up.
You claim "none of this is about banning non EU ads." Allow me to refresh your memory here:
FTA:
1. A ban on using sensitive data such as race or religion for targeting ads
2. A ban on targeting any ads to minors
3. A ban on so-called "dark pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes misunderstandings, and your new rant continues down this path. There is not a single item on your list that have the word "non EU ad" in them, yet you use it as some proof that EU want's to ban ads from non EU companies. It's getting hard to see you as anything other than a troll when you present that list in this context.
Right - and yes, I'm trolling - because it's fun to screw with you folks -
So - the way you put it is that no ads that originate outside the European Union will be banned. Which is not true You're making a distinction without a difference. They don't need to say "Non-EU" or "EU only". They want all ads to conform.
I get ads and links from all over the world. And I want to see you type "No ads from anywhere but the European Union will be affected by these laws."
Re: (Score:2)
So - the way you put it is that no ads that originate outside the European Union will be banned. Which is not true You're making a distinction without a difference. They don't need to say "Non-EU" or "EU only". They want all ads to conform.
No that is not at all how I put it. I put it as in no ads will be banned by looking at if they originated inside or outside the EU which was your claim (that this was about banning ads originating from outside the EU).
Also not entirely sure why you think it's fun that people take you for a illiterate idiot, but hey I'm not the one to deny you your kinks.
Re: (Score:2)
So - the way you put it is that no ads that originate outside the European Union will be banned. Which is not true You're making a distinction without a difference. They don't need to say "Non-EU" or "EU only". They want all ads to conform.
No that is not at all how I put it. I put it as in no ads will be banned by looking at if they originated inside or outside the EU which was your claim (that this was about banning ads originating from outside the EU).
Also not entirely sure why you think it's fun that people take you for a illiterate idiot, but hey I'm not the one to deny you your kinks.
Ah yes. Now you're using insults.
Hard to argue against someone who's pinnacle of debate is calling names. Good work.
I wrote: "You're making a distinction without a difference. They don't need to say "Non-EU" or "EU only". They want all ads to conform."
And you wrote "I put it as in no ads will be banned by looking at if they originated inside or outside the EU which was your claim.
you are wrapped around the axle about something many posts ago.
Now before I start ignoring you, Tell me that what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only one of the best animated movies of all time!
Well, one of the not horrible animated movies.
Well, an animated movie, anyway.
I loved it, but I was the target demographic when it came out: a sixteen year old male in the early 80s. It hasn't exactly aged well. Bitchin' soundtrack, though!
Re: (Score:2)
We just ignore them.
You think you ignore them, but you don't. That's just the advertising people being smarter then you.
I mean - I block them. So on some level, I suppose I know I'm blocking them. But I have no idea what I'm not seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some real pressing issues you should worry about though, in regards to online surveillance. Here's an excerpt from a mail sent by Eric Schmidt for the 2016 US presidential election campaign:
" The database of voters (NGP Van) is a fine starting point for voter records and is maintained by the vendor (and needs to be converted to the cloud). The code developed for 2012 (Narwahl etc.) is unlikely to be used, and replaced by a model where the vendor data is kept in the Van database and intermediate da
Re: (Score:2)
We just ignore them.
And that is how we got to a place where everything and their grandma is plastered with ads. It's not a nice world to live in, don't you think?
And maybe the ads are why you stopped actually looking into the world and retract into safe bubbles and ignoring the real world problems you have.
Re:They could havre changed their ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Main difference between the EU and the US is that the EU at least attempts to take customer rights seriously.
In the US the customer can get fucked as long as the corporations are happy, it seems.
Re: (Score:1)
In the US the customer can get fucked as long as the corporations are happy, it seems.
We get fucked on plenty of other things that the EU doesn't let fly (cost of healthcare being a biggie), but the worst thing an advertising company can do is show/send you an ad.
I've never once heard a good realistic example of how any of this ad tracking has had a negative effect on someone's quality of life. It's always just some sort of vague feeling of creepiness that companies are maintaining data in order to sell you stuff, but not any actual demonstrable harm. I use adblock on my browser and on my
Re:They could havre changed their ways (Score:4, Insightful)
the worst thing an advertising company can do is show/send you an ad.
No, the worst thing it can do is invade every part of your life to figure out what ad to show you.
They're reading your mail, they're following you around, they're watching what you buy. If it was a physical person doing it you'd be telling them to stop. And that's the European's point. Just because it's electronic and invisible doesn't make it OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you a Godwin example: Google can print a list of every jew that uses a computer in the US with a close to 100% certainty.
Re: (Score:3)
...the worst thing an advertising company can do is show/send you an ad.
Not true. There have already been cases of data-miners selling people's personally identifying information to debt collectors, con-artists, stalkers, "private security consultants," & criminal organisations (e.g. for identity theft). There's very little to effectively prevent them from doing so. There are real, material consequences to the loss of our privacy. Just because you're not currently aware of them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is illegal to sell data to criminals
But there's no requirement that you do any significant diligence before handing it over to potential criminals, and no real risk of liability unless they outright told you they were going to do crimes.
and debt collection is highly regulated
It's regulated, but highly is a bit of a stretch. Debt collectors can use data from any legal source to identify you.
The point stands that pretty much anyone can get your data, whether they are supposed to be able to or not.
Re: (Score:1)
but the worst thing an advertising company can do is show/send you an ad.
Do you remember the past two presidential elections in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
but the worst thing an advertising company can do is show/send you an ad.
What if it's an ad that nudges you towards overthrowing your government because a subtle lie in the ad makes you distrust your government for no good reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Main difference between the EU and the US is that the EU at least attempts to take customer rights seriously.
The main difference is the way the laws are written, interpreted, and enforced.
In the EU, the intent of the law is what matters: "Respect people's privacy" -each company is expected to figure out what to do or not do and can be penalized for failing to achieve the goal.
In the USA, the letter of the law is what matters: "Do not do [x,y,z] and do [a,b,c]" -whether or not that achieves the goal [of protecting the consumer]...
Re: (Score:2)
Why? there hasn't been a deterrent from them doing any of these practices. It's a classic case of the regulatory and legislative oligarchy being too slow to catch up to the pace of innovation. We don't need targeted ads, we don't need to be tracked endlessly but even governments sell your data in the US. It's revenue streams they don't want to give up much like extrajudicial asset forfeiture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These companies, knowing where the sensitivities are, could have changed their ways years ago.
They were unfortunately protected and not given any incentive to do anything. Thank the retarded law that is the DMCA for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Uah never mind had a brainfart and got my wires crossed.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies, knowing where the sensitivities are, could have changed their ways years ago. These rules are not to damage companies but to protect the consumer using them. So I am very much OK to charge them for their wilful non-compliance with known rules.
And what will happen is an ongoing game of whack a mole while the big companies find ways to legally collect information despite the laws; resulting in new laws. The GDPR was intended to limit data collection and retention, instead we get endless pop ups asking for consent or blocking access to sites if your IP is in the EU. In the end, the tech giants will roll on and smaller companies will face increased costs to comply since they can't afford an army of lawyers to find ways around the law and defend the
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't dictating to the rest of the world. These companies are free to carry on invading your privacy and selling your personal data to the lowest bidder. They just have to stop doing it to EU citizens.
There are plenty of successful tech companies in Europe. You just don't know about them because they are B2B or primarily non-English language.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't dictating to the rest of the world. These companies are free to carry on invading your privacy and selling your personal data to the lowest bidder. They just have to stop doing it to EU citizens.
While I like the concept, my issue is with the extraterritoriality aspects. If an EU citizen visits a website outside of the EU, they should not expect the law to apply; just as a US law should not be able to force a company to reveal data stored in a country that protects such data from disclosure. Nor should an EU company be faced with a fine by a state for failing to collect sales tax for an item sold on their EU based website and shipped to the US, because SCOTUS said states could require them to coll
Re: (Score:2)
The principle is that the law favours the consumer whenever there is a conflict, so if you do business with an EU citizen you should expect to be held to EU rules.
Websites are free to decline service to EU citizens. In fact some do. When we visit certain sites we get a message saying that due to GDPR they don't accept EU visitors. Mostly local US news sites.
Re: (Score:2)
The principle is that the law favours the consumer whenever there is a conflict, so if you do business with an EU citizen you should expect to be held to EU rules.
Websites are free to decline service to EU citizens. In fact some do. When we visit certain sites we get a message saying that due to GDPR they don't accept EU visitors. Mostly local US news sites.
Yup - eu citizens cannot see my websites unless they use a VPN to bypass my blocking.. I can't think of a reason why they would want in, but apparently I am not in their compliance offense du jour.
If your moral outrage is so strong, that you accept broad geoblocking, to keep you from seeing offending things. then you will be happier in the future.
Then you can wonder what the benevolent overlords you follow believe should never be seen.
I've seen things I don't like on the intertoobz. I chuckle and m
Re: (Score:2)
The principle is that the law favours the consumer whenever there is a conflict, so if you do business with an EU citizen you should expect to be held to EU rules.
Websites are free to decline service to EU citizens. In fact some do. When we visit certain sites we get a message saying that due to GDPR they don't accept EU visitors. Mostly local US news sites.
But that's just it. A US website is not doing business with a visitor from the EU in the EU, and thus is not required to comply. If you believe they should, the EU websites would be subject to US law as well with regards to turning over user information, for example, even if they are located solely in the EU. Such extraterritoriality is unworkable, since it means a company would face legal action from any state where access to the site by a citizen of that state made the site subject to that state's laws.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works. Since the US has virtually no privacy laws it's not currently an issue. Any protections are covered by the GDPR notice.
If there was some protection that only existed in the US, EU based companies would have to either comply with it or block US users.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works. Since the US has virtually no privacy laws it's not currently an issue. Any protections are covered by the GDPR notice.
If there was some protection that only existed in the US, EU based companies would have to either comply with it or block US users.
So do EI+U companies have to comply with Russian laws for sites in the EU? Or Iranian? That’s the slippery slope for extraterritoriality.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't dictating to the rest of the world. These companies are free to carry on invading your privacy and selling your personal data to the lowest bidder. They just have to stop doing it to EU citizens.
There are plenty of successful tech companies in Europe. You just don't know about them because they are B2B or primarily non-English language.
That's word mincing though. EU wants to impose fines on any company that does not do as it dictates. So they are dictating to the world.
Now granted - this is a great example of how Europe thinks compared to the USA. Here, we either compete or offer a solution. A company might make a browser or add ons that will do just what the EU wants. . But rather than that, the idea is to remove money from others pockets
Ans seriously, why is it not possible to make a browser that blocks whatever they find offensi
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is why y'all don't write your own social media apps, and then you can ban whatever you wanted to.
We have/had, but due to market forces (intercommunication with the largest group of people) these US companies gained a de facto monopoly. It would be practically impossible to create another facebook or twitter without basically excluding these big techs from the local market.
Instead we opt to regulate them so that at least, despite their market dominance, they behave a little more like we expect companies to behave. Our market, our rules.
And don't think that if it were European companies that displayed su
Please, stop simplifying... (Score:1)
I know, you want to make head news... but oversimplifying things is quite annoying...
Quote: " A ban on targeting any ads to minors"
So... no more diapers ads, no more formula milk ads, no more toys, etc.
Well... after writing the "forbidden" ads... I'm quite happy with the law....
Re: (Score:3)
TO minors. Not ABOUT minors. English is a weird language, but that one is really clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Also funny, by the way :P Didn't catch that at first.
I'd miss the toy ads though. Oh wait, I don't see any ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: " A ban on targeting any ads to minors"
So... no more diapers ads, no more formula milk ads, no more toys, etc.
Huh?
In what country to minors buy their own milk and diapers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... no more diapers ads, no more formula milk ads, no more toys, etc.
Do babies do their own shopping in the US?
In case your too stupid to understand, diaper ads target the parents, not the kids.
Am I crazy for thinking targeted ads are good? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to have zero ads instead only eliminating the really annoying ones. The next question is what is the cost to our privacy and liberty if corporations have been recording our activities from cradle to grave for marketing? How can an innocuous commercial purpose be turned into a totalitarian state or some even weirder dystopia such as an extortion economy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to have zero ads instead only eliminating the really annoying ones.
The problem with zero ads is everything either goes behind a paywall or out of business. I guess that's fine if you want an internet that's nothing but shopping sites, streaming TV/music services, and paid porn.
Personally, I think getting free shit because advertisers are under the delusion that you're looking at their ads, is a more than fair trade. I think I've burned enough karma on that hill for today, though. I guess some people really love paywalls. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall being on the internet before websites needed ads and usenet was free. Everything being either ads or paywall is a false dichotomy, and I don't buy it.
I guess that's fine if you want an internet that's nothing but shopping sites, streaming TV/music services, and paid porn.
That's happening already. I'm suggesting we not go that route.
Re: (Score:1)
I seem to recall being on the internet before websites needed ads and usenet was free.
There were a lot less people online in those days. You could self-host a reasonably popular site back then as a hobby. Today, something like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc., if any of those went completely ad-free they'd have to charge a subscription. They simply cost far too much to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe twitter and facebook shouldn't exist.
Cost for running a web site has gone down, not up. At least according to my own experience of running it as a "hobby" for 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Websites and Usenet were never free. Someone always paid for it.
Universities, ISPs offering "free" webspace and Usenet servers as part of their packages. Of course if a website got very popular, or a Usenet group started getting high traffic, they would ditch it and expect you to pay if you wanted to keep it.
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet was free because my ISP covered it as part of the services they provided me.
They dropped the service without lowering my bill. hence .. free.
Re: (Score:2)
Websites and Usenet were never free. Someone always paid for it.
That's technically always true. Someone is always paying for the connection. But unless you were paying more to get enough connection to provide USENET, it was effectively free. So there was essentially some paid-for USENET, and some free USENET out there. In between there were a lot of people and organizations paying small amounts of money to make long distance phone connections to transfer their data, e.g. using UUCP. It could be configured to make calls during low-cost rate windows, so the costs were at
Re:Am I crazy for thinking targeted ads are good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Am I crazy for thinking targeted ads are good? (Score:2)
Actually, we donâ(TM)t care about hit counts. Revenues, yes, but hit counts are one possible measure on the path to that, and not necessarily a good oneâ¦
Nationalism! (Score:2)
Yay! Nationalism! Nationalists in the US, who by their hatred emboldened nationalism worldwide, caused this. Fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever man, it's 100% that nationalism causes tribalism which eventually and inevitably leads to human rights abuses and war. Nationalism requires the designation of pariah groups and enemies. That's literally the point of nationalism, to blame others and amplify, detach from, group, & cherry-pick the faults of others so as to divert from their own failings.
The first two (Score:2)
The first two are already illegal, and companies spend real effort to enforce it (for example if a real estate company uses another proxy like zip code for targeting "whites only", will have their ads taken down).
The third one will be a real hot zone. Unlike age or sex which are obvious properties, this is pretty subjective. If a company is successful in getting consent 90% of the time, does it make it a "bad pattern"? Yet, if a company has an obtrusive popup asking for consent, people get fed up, and only
Re: (Score:2)
The first two are already illegal
Where? Be specific. Unless your answer includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden then they aren't already illegal.
And unless Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxem
Re: (Score:2)
The first two are already illegal, and companies spend real effort to enforce it (for example if a real estate company uses another proxy like zip code for targeting "whites only", will have their ads taken down).
Facebook in particular has offered outright illegal targeting options to people explicitly advertising real estate, and either sponsoring content or explicitly buying advertising. Either way they're actually paying Facebook money to do this. And that's just here in the USA! I would be stunned if they were not willfully accessorizing criminal housing advertisement in other countries, but I'm simply not familiar with other countries' laws (and barely familiar with ours.)
I for one think we ought to be asking.. (Score:2)
I think we ought to be asking why the EU thinks that in the midst of run away inflation and post covid economic stress, they think punitive taxes and regulation on some our economies largest entities is the sort of thing a good ally does.
Personally I our worthless vegetable in the White House ought to step up and threaten some serious trade sanctions if the EU seeks to keep trying cash grabs like this and regulating internet outside its own economy. Sure tax and penalize Facebook for whatever you want in t
Re:I for one think we ought to be asking.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. That's not what we should be asking. Since by that metric it's never time to do anything, because there's always something someone considers more important.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we ought to be asking why the EU thinks that in the midst of run away inflation and post covid economic stress, they think punitive taxes and regulation on some our economies largest entities is the sort of thing a good ally does.
Well, let's start at the beginning. What 'good ally' unleashes megacompanies that use fucking psychologists to manipulate the population for their own profit onto their friend countries?
The thing is, these regulation are not thought up yesterday. They have been in the making for many years, all pre-covid.
Personally I our worthless vegetable in the White House ought to step up and threaten some serious trade sanctions if the EU seeks to keep trying cash grabs like this and
These are not cash grabs. We actually want these companies to change their behavior in Europe. They are fines for companies that misbehave.
Sure tax and penalize Facebook for whatever you want in the EU but claiming a share of Global profit - is pretty fucking outrageous!
But it is their global profits and general market dominance that ma
Let's see what the comments are (Score:3)
Yeah, yep, mostly scammers who have bought stolen data, and are spamming me and everyone else with that, and they claiming that "Europe's just jealous".
Go ahead, put up a video of you going to the bathroom, or someone recorded it, and that's ok... but not in Europe. Or you kid is bombarded with advertising. Or...
Good for the EU.
Can we ban all ad targeting? (Score:3)
Re:The US should sanction EU (Score:5, Funny)
You’re like rain man without the math
Re: (Score:3)
Rain man with meth.
Re:The US should sanction EU (Score:4, Informative)
That's pretty hilarious. Where did you get that hot take, RT?
NATO was literally formed due to the USA's insistence, to keep Russia down. And it's worked. Without it, you would see Putin rolling over Europe, not getting stuck in the mud in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The US should sanction EU (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes of course. However It is not NATO that stopped anything but Ukrainians plus massive material support plus USA intelligence and training from the Brits.
You mean from NATO member the USA, and NATO member the UK, and NATO member Germany, and NATO member France? Several of whom have the size of military they have (and thus the ability to immediately send aid from stockpiles) only because of Russia, and the rest of whom are the USA? Tell me again about how irrelevant NATO is.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty hilarious. Where did you get that hot take, RT?
NATO was literally formed due to the USA's insistence, to keep Russia down. And it's worked. Without it, you would see Putin rolling over Europe, not getting stuck in the mud in Ukraine.
To be pedantic, NATO was set up to keep the Soviet Union and its brand of godless totalitarianism in check. Basically, it was the Truman doctrine made flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, kinda. We change our minds on who the enemies are based on money, which is a way that popular appeal is manufactured.
Re: (Score:2)
And NATO was formed against the soviet union, long before Putin was born.
Only for some definitions of "long". The treaty that established NATO was signed in 1949. Vladimir Putin was born in 1952.
Re: (Score:2)
We've you been? The western powers pulled the plug on RT.
And NATO was formed against the soviet union, long before Putin was born. The joke was, and I hate that you're making me explain this, that we change our minds on who are enemies are based on money and popular appeal.
The joke was NATO was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out...
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different than the current situation ?
Re: (Score:2)
Totally different. Because Russia is our enemy and western Europe is our friend (that we're not always very nice to).
Next election cycle? Well let's hope I don't have prophetic powers.
Re: (Score:1)
And make peace with Russia.
I'm sure that's on the agenda if a Republican wins in 2024. That's probably part of the motivation for why the EU is coming down hard on American tech companies. We're no longer a reliable ally if our country might elect another nationalistic lunatic in the next election cycle (or put the previous one back in, who knows).
Re: The US should sanction EU (Score:2)
Some of us tried to give companies free reign a while back, but it did not workout great. People dying and stuff.
But... the US may have missed this since it was not founded then. Laissez-faire, laissez-passez. Pardon my French.
Hang on, I have to put a new block in the fireplace.
Re:Noncompliance could cost companies as much as . (Score:4, Informative)
The purpose of fines is to deter bad/illegal behavior.
If the fines aren't big enough to do that, they are meaningless.
If corporations want to operate in Europe, they're going to have to follow European laws.
If they can't do that, they can pay the fines, or they can pull out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:dark patterns is made up (Score:4, Insightful)
Dark patterns are real. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you too stupid to see them or are you too indoctrinated to acknowledge them?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, no.
These billions (in case these companies continue to not comply) are peanuts in out EU economy, which is somewhere in the hundreds of trillions of dollar on a yearly basis.
And make no mistake, we would rather have these companies stop their unethical behavior than to reap the 'benefits' of the fines. Much rather.
In fact, these fines wouldn't be there if these companies managed good behavior in the first place. Citizens wouldn't have complained and laws wouldn't have been written to paper.