I'm quite comfortable knowing what they are and pointing out the early-2010s naive absolutist approach to privacy didn't work, hence where we are.
Regardless of whether people choose to conversate by telling me what to Google, instead of coming with curiosity and/or contributions.
The same thought process that leads to commentators being confused why Apple rejected someone's app for having a privacy policy of "I don't collect data" applies here.
I'm glad a less naive, and non-absolutist, approach has gotten tangible results, even if it'll take a few years for it to be common wisdom rather than disagreeable to look back on the 2010s and say so.
The article we're discussing, and attendant court decision, is about someone with a Facebook account and the ads in their "social media news feed", not someone without an account who was being profiled.
Did I miss something?
Tangentially, I'd also like to, again, gently, push back on the idea that it's conducive to community health to use an accusatory interlocution approach, especially one that relies on mind-reading to make the accusations.
My apologies if I misinterpreted, but this sentence:
"It's hard to legislate "you cannot collect any info about people ever", when people are free to choose to have an account with them."
Implied to me that you were saying that the information they were gathering was only coming from people who have an account with them. I don't have an account with them, and I'm pretty sure they're collecting all sorts of data on me (despite having every known Meta hostname in my /etc/hosts file pointing to 127.1).
But reading your sentence again, it looks like you were saying something a little different. It seems like I might have misunderstood your point at first glance. My apologies for the snark.
The regulation has to be cheaper than the value add of the service. Nobody wants to get sued for a gazillion because one time in 100 million a child flies out the recalled car seat and gets chopped up by a telephone pole, which of course will be all the fault of Facebook with deep pockets and not the drunk or exhausted parent that is driving. They're just going to say no thanks we will ban this item.
It’s fair to question someone’s judgment based on their expressed opinions, and take that into account when evaluating what they say later on.
Also, he may just have a different definition of “ideal” than some of us.
>"I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg. There was a guy once who we funded who was terrible. I said: 'How could he be bad? He looks like Zuckerberg!'"
I am not calling anyone out - just pointing out this rule exists. I am pretty confused about this rule for what it’s worth. I feel like a lot of content I see on HN is political or ideological at a basic level - like articles about Trump or Ukraine or DOGE or whatever, which are everywhere since January. So if the discussion is “allowed” (like not flagged), I am not sure how to contribute to those discussions without being political or ideological myself. Maybe the rule exists because these discussions can easily become unhealthy - like aggressive comments, downvotes, etc.
I assume they're cool with it. Why wouldn't they be? Musk + Trump probably don't care, it isn't data on them. Hire a bunch of interns and get them on the job.
My sense is they're going to shred any requests like this or just send back a "No Responsive Records" response for every one and dare someone to try to call them on it. But I envy your trusting nature.
