Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheMagicHorsey | Hacker News Reader

How did Facebook determine that Schrems was gay? Do they even know he's gay? Just because they showed him an ad for something that gay people would find relevant doesn't mean they targeted him for being gay. Its possible he likes a lot of stuff gay people like. I get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, even though I'm an atheist. But say I was a Christian, should I then deduce that Facebook knew I was Christian and used that information?

They are just spraying and praying with their ads on best guesses as to what is relevant to you.

How is this a lawsuit?

View on HN

You get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, because you're an atheist.

I fixed that quote for you, because advertising is often targeted to the opposite demographic for various reasons.

Just try enjoying your favorite show on radio or regular TV, and you'll perceive ads for stuff you would never touch, but they are paying good $$$ to support that show you like, and to get in front of everyone possible, and perhaps wear you down with brand recognition and exciting jingles to influence your buying decisions in a moment of weakness.

However, targeted advertising may know exactly what you like, and be an effective means of call-to-action and conversion to sales.

On the back end, Meta advertisers fill out a list of audience interests and demographics. So yes, if the advertisements and their buyers were documented, Meta should also have sales info on the intended audiences.

It's a lawsuit because Schrems only needs enough of a basis to force the courts to consider certain issues, and to make statements about how GDPR should apply in principle in certain situations, in order to effectively restrict big tech's use of data.

It's a case brought strategically in order to trigger certain questions of interpretation of GDPR rules to be litigated.

Schrems' specific claim only needs to hold enough water to give him standing to get the case through enough filters in the court system to facilitate this.

Facebook didn’t determine he was gay, it’s just spray-and-pray by the algorithm exactly like you said. He’s just bringing the court case in bad faith to raise the issue and create another foothold for the EU to extract further billions in fines. The outcome will be more laws so nobody creates anything new in the consumer space or takes any risks that aren’t sanctioned by EU central planners ever again.

Knocking over US big tech companies for fines is literally the fastest growing EU industry by total profits.

Making profit by punishing foreign surveillance malware, I love it!

I’ve never heard of a malware that tells you exactly what it’s doing with your data upfront.

But anyways, not sure the EU will love it so much once the US finally puts its foot down and the EU capitulates. Unfortunately it’s hard to say no to the only country that will protect your sovereignty (NATO doesn’t work without the US and I’m sure Russia would like to keep going further into Europe).

After that data privacy revenue stream dries up, the only thing left will be the laws and regulations that permanently keep the EU tech industry from ever being competitive with the US or China.

But maybe the ballooning population of European social benefits retirees will pay for themselves? Who needs evil private industry to generate tax revenues when you have bulletproof data privacy over what toilet paper you bought last week. Who can afford the insane risk of somebody creating products that might disclose this highly sensitive data?

Believe it or not surveillance capitalism isn't the only business model out there. Builders and makers may perhaps find something more interesting to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com