gateklons.bsky.social
EU digital policy nerd | data protection & privacy | competition | platform & media regulation | identity | cybersecurity
Focus: consent-or-pay & (messaging) interoperability
https://gateklons.substack.com/
🐘 @[email protected]
🐦 @gateklons
1,903 posts
1,181 followers
255 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Like, should people start setting up decoy accounts on popular websites that only post rosy and uncontroversial content just in case? But then good luck building a believable social graph 🙃
comment in response to
post
take but stories like these just remind me that maybe I should double down.
And to be clear all the precautions I take required years of clean-up and set-up and significant privacy labor which the vast, vast majority of people (even privacy pros) don't have the time, foresight or the skill set for.
comment in response to
post
Of course, as we already knew, the decision only covers the period before Meta introduced the 'Additional Ads option' which does prevent some data from being used for ad personalization but is still a shitshow otherwise. Missed opportunity to not have included that as well IMO.
comment in response to
post
There's also something in there about Meta's external legal advisors wanting access to the Commission's file which they apparently abused (in Meta's eyes).
The amount of "regulatory dialogue" described in the decision is beyond absurd and unnecessary: Meta's conduct is already illegal on its face.
comment in response to
post
As explained in a previous blogpost on the topic (gateklons.substack.com/p/edpbs-prob...) this "less personalized option" is just regulatory make-believe, not based on the law. Reminder: Art. 5(2) also excludes legitimate interests as a valid legal basis.
comment in response to
post
I would love to hear the legal justification from the EC and EDPB what the legal basis for still processing some data (for minimal ad personalization) would be after the user has already refused consent. Unless "personalised" also covers ReccSys personalization and similar?
comment in response to
post
The Commission also engaged with consumer orgs, consultancies and industry orgs (including IAB Europe). More data protection focused civil society (EDRi, noyb etc.) for some reason is not on this list.
I hope non-industry stakeholders appropriately trashed the EDPB Opinion
comment in response to
post
The Commission's DMA enforcement team is way too small for the task. I don't understand why they aren't trying to rely on help from the private sector and society at large to support them.
We could get some real work done instead of having "workshops" in which gatekeepers have to pretend to listen.
comment in response to
post
She calls the fines on Apple and Meta "enforcement" but we all know that those fines were basically giving a parking ticket to a full-size tanker truck full of heroin. Will that stop trafficking?
comment in response to
post
TBH don't think the WhatsApp terms are crazy, just maybe not a good fit with Matrix. Surprising that others like Viber (which was present in the workshop) have not already taken up the opportunity. Inability to reach non-EU users probably the biggest reason (IIRC one of factors cited by Matrix).
comment in response to
post
They started forcing accounts on Google Translate as well now for image translation I think. Now all that is connected to an account as well.
comment in response to
post
stick with the current language.
See: twitter.com/johnnyryan/s...
comment in response to
post
Commendable that so many panelists are women (and as usual have the most interesting things to say)!
comment in response to
post
Though just related to Art. 6(11) DMA. Also potentially interesting extraterritorial considerations esp. vis-a-vis DoJ case.
comment in response to
post
Apple and Meta non-compliance decisions: time until next week to comply
comment in response to
post
Appropriately hideous and nonsensical 😆