- digital services act mandates interoperability in chat, but apparently companies can put require obnoxious terms for interoperating parties such as sharing their users IP addresses - which service is going to agree to that if a very large portion of the alternatives target people not wanting to share data with Facebook?
- pay "ridiculous price" or accept ads & tracking instead of allowing to disable tracking
i haven't heard about the first one yet. i totally believe it, but do we have an actual example of facebooks demands? are they documented somewhere?
the second one i experience daily and it's driving me nuts. i am sure it is actually illegal, but i have yet to find an explanation on why it should be allowed or a convincing legal argument in why it actually violates the rules. something that i could send to violators.
What loopholes?
- digital services act mandates interoperability in chat, but apparently companies can put require obnoxious terms for interoperating parties such as sharing their users IP addresses - which service is going to agree to that if a very large portion of the alternatives target people not wanting to share data with Facebook?
- pay "ridiculous price" or accept ads & tracking instead of allowing to disable tracking
NOYB have raised a complaint on the second one for a publisher in the Nordics.
https://noyb.eu/en/nordic-media-giant-schibsted-switches-pay...
2 replies →
i haven't heard about the first one yet. i totally believe it, but do we have an actual example of facebooks demands? are they documented somewhere?
the second one i experience daily and it's driving me nuts. i am sure it is actually illegal, but i have yet to find an explanation on why it should be allowed or a convincing legal argument in why it actually violates the rules. something that i could send to violators.
1 reply →
The "legitimate purposes" pre-ticked hidden box on some cookie dialogs, for one.
AFAIK, those are not legally compliant.