Features like what? They couldn't even be offered if the user was to opt-in?
Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads.
When people are willingly tagging the location of where they're having lunch and posting pictures of what they're eating, I can't say I agree. Preventing companies from tracking information users aren't aware of is a good thing though.
GDPR is meant to prevent this though? What you're agreeing to has to be understandable and the data you're collecting has to be directly related to the service you're providing?
GDPR addresses some of that. You need informed consent, which means it has describe in plain language what happens, if you want to change it, you need explicit opt in again.
There's debate about how far you can deny service if someone withholds (or withdraws) consent.
So the EU has created a law that Facebook and many other online services will arguably at all times be in violation of. This will create an environment where the EU can use the threat of enforcing the law to effectively impose its will on these massive businesses that cannot comply and still run their business. This was sold to the public as a privacy law, but it’s really just a huge power play.
In that example, wouldn't the specific purpose be "to display it on the user's timeline" (or on the user's profile)? So it would be allowed to stay as long as the timeline (or the user's profile) is visible (and the user didn't mark that piece of information as hidden).
No.
> There's at least an argument to be made that I am.
THere really isn't.
I'm not following the logic here. A social network to me is a place where you post information you're willing to broadcast publicly or to your friends. That's the whole point of social networks. Users understand this and want their data used in that way so I don't see how it would be against GDPR.
What cannot be kept indefinitely is the data that Facebook has not received explicit consent for -- the profiling in the background, scraping information from other sites, and so on.
Broadly written legislation, whether intended by its authors or not, always winds up being used as a tool to gain leverage where the government didn't have it before. So yes, there will be some good things that result from this legislation, just as some good things will likely result from FOSTA. But because it is so broadly written and many things in it will be up to the interpretation of individual courts when actions are brought under it, mark my words: it will be used in ways that nobody defending it in this thread has thought about, to impose fines and other sanctions on companies (perhaps even some of the startups of HN users, should some government person in the EU take issue with their business) for reasons that you may very well not agree with.
I’ve worked with people who are experts on the new regulations. They don’t seem to be at all confused about what it means or implies. The only unknowns they’re talking about is the practicalities of someone like Facebook conforming eg requesting many different permissions. But that’s because businesses like Facebook are doing unethical stuff, ie they’ve been doing things you really won’t want to explicitly give them permission to do.
GDPR builds on previous law, such as PECR and DPA.
If it's not legal under GDPR there's a good chnce it was already not legal under PECR or DPA. And we didn't see those used by governments to get leverage.
Perhaps the problem is that these companies make their money in an incredibly unethical way that an increasing number of people are very uncomfortable with?
Stop turning this into something it isn't. All you are doing is poisoning the debate.
You're be free to do that. And then you'd have to cut off a large revenue stream (~25% of FB's revenue comes from the EU). And if you get popular, some EU start up can just copy your site. They already know what works, what features to build, so it'll be quicker for them to copy than it took you to build. This competitor will be able to operate in the USA and EU, but you won't be able to take them on in the EU. They'll have a safe, protected user base of ~500 million potential users to rely on.