Talk for Article "Activist accuses Facebook and Google of breaching GDPR"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    If there is nothing in the news about what Google did, why Google is it in the headline?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Because not everything gets publicity, especially when these stories would be searched for primarily on Google… A company which is known for prioritizing and un-prioritizing content when it suits them…

      It may well have been covered by relatively small outlets, but we wouldn’t know for the reason mentioned above. But if you have used Google services such as youtube or google+ in the last fortnight, it does feel like Facebook, and what this post is saying – not as much as Facebook, as on the 25th it literally locked you out of all account functions until you say yes… It’s not right.

      Corporations such as these as taking things like freedom of speech and the censorship of said freedoms into their own hands, from the new algorithms on youtube developing over the last year or so, too Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Scandal and banning certain views. How does this relate too GDPR?

      They are taking consent into their own hands, and it’s no longer consent when it’s done like this, it is an Ultimatum, which must be answered with their prefered answer (yes), for people who use Facebook (or google respectively) for E-Commerce.

      So they are taking consent and turning it into an illusion of consent, and they are taking freedom of speech and adding so many exceptions to freedom of speech, which means it is no longer freedom of speech.

      Sorry for the rant! But many of the reasons why expressive people use this sites are for the exact reasons and things that are being constricted by the Google and Facebook’s of the world.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        I’m sorry, but your story sounds like

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Hey, I had a reply which shows how I disagree completely with what you said, but it won’t let me submit it… Basically, Search for google prioritizing search results – They have a history of it, they have been taking to court for it I believe, around a year ago – It’s not a conspiracy at all, you need to learn what that terms mean my friend. One example of quelling freedom of speech on Youtube’s part: Today, youtube has taken down over 30 Drill music videos at Scotland Yard’s request in the UK. There is no evidence based on people of similar socio-economic and demographic backgrounds that even indicates that Drill music correlates knife crime or violence in general.

          The main argument against this says that drill music is a cultural outlet and representation of life for certain young people in inner city London and other UK cities.

          As there is no evidence, they have deleted this cultural expression and freedom of speech, because some people (Scotland yard), holds the opinion that Drill music leads to violence.

          As there is no evidence for this, it is targetted disability for freedom of speech-specific too one demographic. This is only one example.

          And why would you say ‘your story’ I don’t think you understand what a story is? My story in this context would we novelling my personal experience with this issue.

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            We have a story about how drill music is being treated!

            The above seems a bit out of the remit of this story (and let’s not assume people don’t know the definition of ‘conspiracy theory’.) Action is being brought against Google, that’s why it’s in the headline. If either of you wanted to start a draft about YouTube issues or add to the existing drill piece that would be awesome.

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              I’ll think about it! Except my knowledge comes from knowing people who listen to this music in these demographics, at these ages, in London, and it (from knowledge of these people’s lives [first hand]), does certainly not cause violence; it may contribute to these violent acts, but can never cause them as a primary factor, and this is the main argument that Scotland Yard (from my perspective) have used to request the removal of these videos.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      If you look at the first reference it shows that Max Schrems has also brought action against Google.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I really hoped that this activist would choose an actual thorn on the data privacy list to file a lawsuit on. Everybody complained that these companies were selling data to everyone else, but once they have the laws in place to tackle that, they now say that we will attack the business model altogether which is detrimental to the essence of the conversation.

    You can choose not to use facebook, its like going to a supermarket and saying I want the product but dont want to pay for it in cash but in kind. I really hope the EU has the sense to pick its battles, otherwise it will just look ridiculous and drive away innovation along with making it look unviable.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Things like monetary fines for things like breaking the GDPR is so short-term, what is much more valuable is penalties that are revisions to the law to prevent this in the first place…

      I feel like damaging a world giant like Facebook is relatively pointless… The Re-structuring of power and liberties available to Facebook would be a much better result, such as restrictions on the level and way that advertising is allowed to operate.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Why do people love govt intervention so much? It would be way better to mandate transparency, what data facebook collects, how they use it,etc.

        If you allow a change of business model (which is what gdpr’s main aim was, even though they try to spin it another way), then the only option is to charge for all online services. This will hinder information flow, make services unavailable for a vast majority of people worldwide who cannot/dont have the ability to pay. Perhaps that is what they want anyway.

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Possibly, I’m just saying laws should be in place demanding complete transparency within data collection etc, and this should be legally required to be presented in an an-easy-to-interpret format, much like analytics for people who own pages and read their own data.

          This is my own opinion of course, but surely the average user should have access to understand how this company uses their personal data.

          Whilst I respect free enterprise and the ways in which to pursue capitalist outcomes and aims, I respect much more – Liberal Humanist ideals which say the customer is always right, and if the customer’s data is being used for non-transparent things, the customer is being alienated (at-least in my own experience).

          A penalty fine (in my opinion), is a much lower deterrent too these practices, especially too a giant that can almost always revive from such penalties.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us