Now Facebook does it's mix-and-mash anyways.
I'd have expected to hear something out of France about this. Did I just miss it?
Sorry for asking, I know next to nothing about how these laws work.
If one of the primary conditions of the merger was that WhatsApp was not allowed to share user data with FB, and then FB goes ahead and does it anyway (even before ever prompting users to agree with this), then that should be all the reason the agencies need to order the split of WhatsApp from Facebook.
Because they don't take this seriously enough is exactly why Facebook is now attempting to further integrate Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, so that a few years down the road when the shit will really hit the fan, FB would be able to claim that the disintegration of the services is "impossible" at that point and/or get those platforms' users to raise hell against their politicians for attempting to do that.
Did they? I thought it was just under discussion.
Obviously frustrating for non-EU citizens but the only thing helping here will be more GDPR-like laws across the globe. If enough nations enact regulation like this, it'll be cheaper for a company to follow it globally.
I hope they go for the maximum fine.
If I want to give Google Maps access to my location it means only Maps and for limited scope not all across Google ecosystem.
Android is constantly nagging me to turn on location and wifi scanning for example to use Google Home. It doesn't make sense - they could use SSID of my home wifi to make sure that I am home. Where my home is is not their business.
Plus I do not object to ads in Maps based on my behaviour in Maps. I do object against that spider's web that Google and FB is building around my entire life.
Even those that charge. E.g. google maps will charge the vendor and still track the user. A WSJ subscription will still have tracking code and third party js, etc.
As long as it's free for the service and there are no penalties, then of course they will try to collect as much data on you as you allow them to collect. But it's your responsibility as an internet user to prevent them from collecting anything that you don't approve of, and to block third parties from injecting their code into your equipment unless you vet that code or otherwise trust it. When stuff like spying and data collection is outlawed, this creates economic room for honest players to participate in honest business practices. We're just not there yet.
> Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook accounts
> The Bundeskartellamt underestimates the fierce competition we face in Germany
Which competition? The only viable social network in Germany that came close to Facebook was Lokalisten, which shuttered finally in 2016.
The social media extraction technology could be replaced by other tefhnologies used to mine data and attention, such as videos, music, or chat services. The competitors, however, are other companies selling the same product.
That is FB’s perspective.
I don't recall ever seeing anything like that. So it's either very rare or limited to certain regions. I do recall seeing Facebook billboards which pick up some of the Anti-Facebook rhetoric, e.g. . Those are paid for by Facebook.
> country-wide hysteria against social networks
According to Facebook itself, there are ~29 million daily users in Germany (pop. 82 million).
 http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-1065027-galleryV9-qxvz-1... ("I posted something I should not have shared/Delete it and it's gone")
I don't mean evidence that people want more privacy and someone is paying/putting up billboards advocating this. Do you have some evidence (anything) that these yet unnamed companies are behind a strategy to stain FB's image (as if it were needed) in order to have the privacy violation market all to the themselves?
Can you at least name one of these companies? Or maybe a hint on why Facebook doesn't even acknowledge this enemy?
I have absolutely no insight into any lobbying activities, obviously.
Are you sure? It's unusual but not impossible. It ought to be possible to find out who is paying for them.
If you're a monopolist, widen your pool of competition to include anything you possibly can.
If your employees consume fruit at work, proclaim you're competing with Chiquita bananas (and have a tiny share of the fruit market).
If your employees ever fly on planes, proclaim your position in jets is terribly weak next to Boeing and Airbus.
They're not a social network, they're considerably trailing YouTube with Watch. They're not a social network, they're trailing Craigslist with Marketplace. They're not a social network, they're badly trailing Android and iOS in app marketplaces. They're not a social network, they're badly trailing Amazon and Google in smart speakers and home tech. And so on the lie goes.
I'm pretty sure that AT&T and Standard Oil also had branches that did not have a monopoly in their respective areas, but that didn't stop the splitting of the companies.
It doesn't work very well at all with a determined government, which will zero in on specific market abuses (rather than getting caught up in bullshit PR fluff). Primarily it's one part PR play with the public brand & image, and one part time delay. Facebook would love nothing more than to have an opportunity to burn years of time by being given a chance to argue round and round about all the competition they face.
Microsoft laughably couldn't stop repeating how they were fighting for their right to innovate (which eg had next to nothing to do with their serious OEM abuses). Every other word out of Gates and Ballmer's mouths for years was a variation of innovation. They beat that drum to death, it made no difference. They tried playing the widen the competition pool card over and over again, that also made zero difference.
No serious regulator will ever believe the competition everywhere premise. I generally don't believe it's aimed at actually convincing a serious regulator, either. The sharks that work for giants like Facebook know it's not an actual strong legal argument, which is why I believe it's one part stall tactic and one part public image support. There's a small chance it could cause some skepticism among less determined regulators as a fluke benefit.
Fortnite is the bogeyman for all entertainment and so forth.
But yeah as for social network, nothing.
Facebook will just get away with a dark pattern of showing some new consent agreement to “improve your user experience” and nag people until they accept out of frustration.
Can’t any regulators just say, “No, you can’t do this under any circumstances. Period.”? Or come up with laws that prohibit these practices, knowing fully well the size and influence of Facebook and its properties (applying it to similar companies/models as well)?
The realist in me goes "yay, more annoying consent popups" :(
Facebook has shown they're going to do what they want how they want regardless of public perception, deals with other companies, other company rules, and arguably laws already in place.