> Meta said it was awaiting publication of the court’s full judgment and that it “takes privacy very seriously.”
I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. I'm getting second hand embarrassment from them. Imagine being caught in such a blatant and egregious privacy violation and having to gall to make such a claim.
Did you see that Social Dilemma documentary? People only find their conscience after they've checked a big bankroll.
I've been in tech for almost two decades now and I've seen many many many good people throw their values right out the window once the price was right.
This reminds of people who claim they’re too honest to disguise that they’re assholes. You can absolutely start a company and make lots of money without compromising your values. Someone claiming otherwise is usually trying to excuse bad behaviour or get over a past failure.
Here's the thing though, and I say this from personal experience...if you're willing to compromise your values...you can make a shitload of money.
Of course. But then you’re also playing a different game, one where the downsides are expanded from make no money to go to jail or worse.
> The open-source AI model [...] Llama is the leading open source model family
Then from https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B
> License: Use of Llama 3.2 is governed by the Llama 3.2 Community License (a custom, commercial license agreement).
In that license: Section 1(b)(i) requires you to display "Built with Llama" (branding requirements, really?). Section 2 has additional restrictive licensing requirements. Section 5(c) has retaliation that your license is terminated if you initiate legal proceedings. There is probably more too.
Pretty close to "Not Open Source". Yet, Meta continue marketing Llama as such.
I think the idea is there's some percentage of the public that will just uncritically accept the last thing they were told as gospel truth, and the rest don't believe you any less than they did before, so it's a net win.
All they're saying is they take X very seriously. Which can be interpreted positively by some, yet doesn't put them too much at risk when tomorrow they're found again screwing X. They'll still be taking X very seriously at that time.
Is it not more likely that the group of people/profiles and activities he participated on Facebook are what "outed" him instead?
I had hoped for more details about how Schrems and/or a court were able to prove Facebook took his off-site meeting into account and based ads on that alone.
How do you think we got basic rights? (Natural rights are a philosophical object.)
They didn't say that the data can't be collected. They didn't say the data can't be processed at all. They didn't say that the data can't be "aggregated and analysed" for some purpose other than "to offer him personalised advertising".
Meta does indeed offer controls to disable personalised and targeted advertising. If Schrems had disabled these settings appropriately, would Schrems have learned what Meta knew? It would seem that the targeting and personalisation is often the only way a user will find out what social media knows about us.
So IMHO, this is a sad, sad day for your privacy and Schrem's privacy, because if Meta can't reveal what they know about us through advertising and targeting, then Meta does indeed take Meta's privacy very seriously.
I think of the story where Target was pushing diaper ads on someone before her dad (maybe even her?) knew she was pregnant
But if advertising works on a recommendation engine basis, or groups similar tastes together, then if someone uses the Meta platform enough, there will be circumstancial evidence that this person's interests and activities coincide with other gay people.
Perhaps the merit of the case rested with Schrems barely using Meta/FB, not providing any direct data or engagement, and only to discover that advertising was targeted. Of course, Meta is a vast platform, including comments sections and widgets and third-party cookies across many websites.
But Meta takes Meta's privacy very seriously, so perhaps nobody but the court will ever see what Meta and their partners learned about Schrems, or how they learned it.
If only the AP had gone web-first instead of staying legacy, we'd all probably be able to just follow a link to the actual case information instead of having to guess.