I don't really see the merit of this case though. They're not alleging that facebook broke any data protection laws, for the purposes of this case, just that users 'aren't properly compensated'. I'm not sure how you'd determine that though, a lot of people use Facebook heavily, and presumably they value the service. Is it really up to a court to decide how much they value it?
Users would get £50 each from this case, presumably for many years of use to this point on average, so this would be a few pence per week of their usage. If the lawyers bringing the case think that's all the user data is worth, that seems a small price to pay for most users of the service. It just doesn't add up.
If you're blocking ads and not paying for premium then it's more that you're taking without giving. Which incentives them to pry harder for whatever they can glean from your usage, and show more ads to non-blockers.
You can guarantee every single post critical of FAANG has lots of those kind of comments
How would you explain the fact that police forces, private investigators, credit bureaus, stalkers and intelligence agencies love Facebook if all the company is doing is "showing me ads"?
My point is that you're leaving out the most valuable/terrifying thing that this company does: creating incredibly detailed profiles of nearly every person on the planet including their likes, dislikes, relationships, private thoughts and behavioral patterns.
We may be powerless to change it because developers are easily bribed with FAANG salaries and people generally like their stock portfolios but let's at least be honest about it.
That said, given how often they insist on showing me (literally) revolutionary marxist content no matter how often I click “Show me less of this” — and from the same specific groups no matter how often I click “Never show me ‘Demexit Memes For Green Teens’” (I’m not a teen, I can’t exit the Democrat party because I’m not an American and can’t join in the first place, Brexit riffs give me a negative affect, and while I am vaguely green-ish at least in regards to UK politics I feel negatively about the USA Green Party) — I don’t think they’re even very good at using this data for targeting content.
> It would be like saying it is unfair that meat I buy in the supermarket costs the supermarket less than they charge me.
Something about buying Manhattan island for some beads comes to mind, although the actual history behind that meme is rather more interesting: https://knowledgenuts.com/native-americans-didnt-sell-manhat...
The difference between what they're arguing and your supermarket example is that there's competition in the UK for supermarkets  and that the price of the meat in the supermarket is right there on the label, while on Facebook you have to dig through the T&Cs to figure out what they're doing. Your standard supermarket also has margins of ~5% , while Facebook has 36% , so it might be argued that Facebook's price is unreasonably inflated due to the lack of competition.
Shouldn't it really be more significant when a company takes payment but continues to also monetize ads. I.e. not disclosing the money made from product placements in a movie in a ticket purchase is a specific fraud relating to a transaction with a measurable cost.
foodface spends a lot of time in the red propped up by investors as it focuses on growth. At this point goods were priced the same as everywhere else. foodface uses its funding to invest in the best arrangement of aisles and container quantity to focus purely on maximizing quantity that people buy, not on profit.
Eventually foodface cracks the code. They recognize how to maximize quantity. Now they shift focus to profit. They start to figure out how to aggregate data about your purchases and then how to market that data to companies who sell goods in their store. foodface now hands you an automated personal shopper device at the door, with deals on goods that are personalized to you. While you're shopping, metrics are collected and sold off to the highest bidder and they get to bid for spots on your shopping deals list. You're most likely shopping for baby related items, or prepping items, or weekly grocery items, or clothing.
Grocery shopping starts to morph. People become slaves to the deal list. People no longer go with a list to the store, they go to the store and get the list of things to buy. foodface notices when their purchasing falls below a normal threshold and then pings them to update their profile. Did they lose a job? Did they get a new family member? And based on those things and machine learning models they start to present shopping lists that take all the stress out of planning your shopping trip. The feedback loop is complete.
They raise more money, and they start to buy up all the grocery stores around you. Now there's nowhere else for you to shop except foodface. Mom and pop stores spring up, but their whole intent is to get bought. You try to drive out of town to where there's still normal grocery stores but those stores don't offer deals because all the companies with goods on their shelves don't get even an order of magnitude of the profit they get from buying your data from foodface.
Anyways, so the contention here as it seems to me is that your personal data is worth more to foodface than the service you're getting, and that isn't obvious to you at the time your data is handed over. You can figure it out later but at that point it's too late. The amount of personal data you can salvage once you figure it out is simply taking away future data points, but you're still ultimately "known" up to the point you quit.
... hold on, that's a pretty good startup idea. Meh, nevermind. It's brick and mortar. Those are notoriously difficult.
At least in practice, even if not in theory.
Highly doubt this would be in the "cost of doing business category"
2.3 billion GBP.
44 million people.
From October 1st to December 31st is 3 months. Followed by all of 2016 through all of 2019, so 4 times 12 months.
51 months total.
((2.3 * 10^9)/(44 * 10^6))/51
Suing them for a small fraction of their profits based on fashionable but flimsy legal theories is boring, and the outcome is always the same.
Designating social media as a Controlled Substance would be insane, but it'd at least be apropos.
LOL. lawyer speak statement of the century. you could always just kill yourself - you have definite and permanent control of your data.
i am the last generation. i grew up outside but got a computer and cell phone in my teenage years. it truly saddens me that people think social media is a requirement for living. just dont do it, and dont let your kids do it.
With your first sentence I thought you realized this much, but then your second one doesn't make sense. Yes this response is purely lawyer speak and PR exactly because you don't control your data. Everyone on the Internet wants as much data as they can possibly grab.
In some ways, it is. News get shared over social media. Events get published (only) on social media. A lot of people organize hobbys or work on social media. You will miss a lot by choosing to ignore it. And yes, you can still live without it, but comparing it to a time when nobody used social media is just apples to oranges.
We as adults can choose not to use it and deal with the social consequences. But other kids won't be understanding or even accommodating. Completely banning you kids from social media is just as bad as letting them use it.
If kids are that brutal over the colour of a chat message, you can only imagine how they'd react if they didn't have a phone at all (or have social media, they are essentially one in the same in this case).