If this was some random small company you could imagine that the regulators have bigger fish to fry, but in this case this is the #1 offender worldwide when it comes to privacy - if there are "fish to fry", this is the biggest fish, and the regulator's lack of serious action (such as the million-dollar fines everyone is fear-mongering about) suggests they're either incompetent or complicit.
Sucking up 4% of revenue is catastrophic enough (that is probably double digits of profit). The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company.
> The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company.
Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
Because you want to encourage compliance — encourage the companies to do the right thing. If you make the fine too high, they’ll be scared and try to hide the offense.
But fines and tickets being pegged to income is a good idea. Fixed amounts for fines are really expensive if you don’t make much money. Similarly, they aren’t much of a deterrent if they are a small amount of your income.
I guess, the way I see it, you can offer substantial discounts if they self-report. However, if you take them to court over obvious misbehavior, and they lose, I mean ... have at them. In this case I'd want to see something progressive, starting at X% then going up Y% each month of non-compliance.
A small but not negligible portion of the world does make the distinction between fines for the poor and fines for the rich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Although significant, unfortunately I don't think 4% of revenue means as much as it should to Facebook specifically.
Facebook has a distinctly high profit ratio (2020 Facebook revenue was $85 billion, net income $29 billion), so 4% of revenue means a lot less to Facebook than other companies that GDPR restrains. 4% of their revenue is $3.4 billion which is 11% of their net income.
And the potential negative impact of Facebook's negligence in data handling is distinctly greater than other companies, Facebook collects far more data than most other companies and has access to far more personal data. They have somehow managed to convince a huge portion of the world's population to share a significant tap of data into their lives.
The EU courts could go after any assets/companies associated with Facebook operating in the EU and basically dissolve them as bankrupt if they fail to pay their increasing fines.
Another venue is to go directly after Facebooks European customers and make it illegal for any company to pay Facebook for ads targeting European customers.
In the end this would force Facebook to abandon Europe and lead to local competitors taking over that market weakening Facebooks network effects in non-US markets.
this is an escalation and delaying game and so far facebook is banking on some political saving grace that probably wont come as well privacy is considered an human rights by European courts and not something an simple short term political majority can simply erase because it's convenient for some US megacorp.
The question here is does the US have any leverage left as it's not like the American diplomatic service haven't tried pressure European regulators and courts to water down the enforcement of European privacy regulation since it was enacted.
If the showdown happens in the highly independent German court system, i just don't see how American political pressure is going to stop the slow but steady path of escalating measures likely to be taken if Facebook refuses to comply with court rulings.
I remember there were plans to require large social platforms, of which Facebook is the largest, to at least provide an equal access to as much API as their official apps have, and at most support interoperability (federation).
GDPR only applies to the EU anyway. They can't enforce GDPR in the US. Facebook can always just close their offices in Germany but still serve their website worldwide, and unless Germany wants to implement a firewall to the likes of China, it will be accessible to German residents.
The US needs to implement an equivalent privacy law.
Not quite true. If facebook were to remain usable by EU citizens, it falls under EI jurisdiction. This, too, is part of GDPR and the reason why some US websites simply block EU IP addresses.
Of course, they could defy that order as well and hope that their assets are safe elsewhere in the world. Or, you know. their executives have seen enough of Rome and Paris.
Yes, they can enforce whatever they want if the punishment is locking that company out of the EU, the largest internal market in the world. No multinational company wants to lose access to such a huge market.
The EU actually has a huge leverage to push things, it just chooses not to exercise that power most of the time.
The US and China are now both larger than the EU economy.
The RCEP isn't an internal market. In its ideal outcome it's a partial trade agreement, not all-inclusive. In its present condition, given relations between its members keeps getting worse, it's barely a functioning trade agreement at all. The odds are overwhelming it'll rip apart, and soon. See: China vs Australia & Co.
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
> This article discusses how U.S. law affects the enforcement of Article 3(2). In reality, enforcing the GDPR on U.S. companies may be almost impossible. First, the U.S. prohibits enforcing of foreign-country fines. Thus, the EU enforcement power of fines for noncompliance is negligible. Second, enforcing the GDPR through the designated representative can be easily circumvented. Finally, a private lawsuit brought by in the EU may be impossible to enforce under U.S. law.
[snip]
> Currently, there is a hole in the GDPR wall that protects European Union personal data. Even with extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. companies with only an internet presence in the EU, the GDPR gives little in the way of tools to enforce it. Fines from supervisory authorities would be stopped by the prohibition on enforcing foreign fines. The company can evade enforcement through a representative simply by not designating one. Finally, private actions may be stalled on issues of personal jurisdiction. If a U.S. company completely disregards the GDPR while targeting customers in the EU, it can use the personal data of EU citizens without much fear of the consequences. While the extraterritorial jurisdiction created by Article 3(2) may have seemed like a good way to solve the problem of foreign companies who do not have a physical presence in the EU, it turns out to be practically useless.
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
I mean what are they going to do, invade Silicon Valley with their armed forces? It's not really enforceable. They can set up a firewall if they like and censor Facebook, that's the most they can do.
And hee hee, the freedom-loving EU citizens will riot if they try to censor the internet, we all know that :)
Checkmate, GDPR is not enforceable.
The real way to solve the problem is the US should implement its own privacy laws, and preferably better ones than requiring some stupid annoying cookie popups.
How desperate is Facebook for this data that they are willing to ignore governments? Is their business not viable with this information? If it is then maybe Andrew Yang is right and we should be paid for this data too
> "In 2016, the commissioner demanded Facebook stop collecting user data from WhatsApp. In that case, Facebook worked with Germany to iron things out. It does not appear that the social media platform is willing to cooperate this time."
This line to me sounds incredibly sinister. For a long time I've been fearmongering about the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states. It sounds rather disconcerting when Facebook is engaging in diplomacy and brinksmanship with powerful nation states. Even worse, when they're winning.
It's at least encouraging that the European Union is concerned about Facebook's growing power and political influence. The incumbent American institution seems to have all-but ignored this growing problem. Of course there were lots of crocodile tears about "Russian collusion" and "Fortifying the Election", and so on. However through all that, there doesn't seem to have been much questioning of the nature of Big Tech's power, only the direction of its application.
Germany ist’s a small State. It‘s basically the most powerful nation in Europe. I can‘t see any benefit for Facebook from this. There is a line of thought that Germany decides lots of EU decisions, could we see Facebook banned from the EU? Unlikely, Facebook will probably back down like they did with Austraila, but if things keep escalating after a Germany ban I think an EU ban would be talked about.
Facebook and governments are very experienced at spinning news in a way that makes them look good.
The Australian government was looking for mandatory negotiations with media companies, forcing them to pay for content. They relaxed that "mandatory" clause a bit and added longer periods for notification and negotiation.
In the past year, Facebook has signed revenue-sharing deals with most of the major news platforms in Australia (ongoing) and on Monday of this week, they announced they would be investing $15 million in regional news media.
https://www.fool.com.au/2021/05/10/facebook-to-invest-15-mil...
Google has also signed contracts with some of the major media companies.
which is, imho, a loss for journalism integrity in australia. The media law was instigated by the incumbent media conglomerate in australia, to prevent revenue leakage to google, but still allow the utilization to bring in traffic etc.
Google, and the other tech companies should've strong armed, and threaten to quit (and perhaps, actually do) displaying _any_ australian media outlets in their search engines.
I think google didn't want to play chicken because the fees they are asked to pay is relatively small (given their size), and a fight with the aus gov't would've been a bit ugly (because it's an indirect fight that the media conglomerate has managed to strong arm the gov't to fight for them). Alas, it wasn't meant to be, and Google (and others) deemed it a small price to pay - what a letdown for ordinary australians and a huge win for the entrenched media conglomerate in australia.
Perhaps Facebook believes that the regulator has stepped beyond its legal authority and would prefer to have a court decide the matter? It's a pretty normal thing. Bureaucrats may be powerful, but, in countries I'm familiar with, they are limited by the law in terms of what actions they may take, what justifications they must provide, and the reach of their decisions' force. Facebook appears to be wagering that this decision will not be enforced, presumably due to an insufficiency of one of these factors.
> Unlikely, Facebook will probably back down like they did with Austraila
Also, you're mistaken about what happened here. Australia blinked. Facebook got most of what it wanted. Only then did Facebook unban Australian news.
Apparently they can just ignore it, though, at the risk of whatever consequences would apply. I confess I do not know the details of the legalities around this particular injunction, whether it behaves like an American injunction, etc. I notice that not a court but a commissioner issued this injunction, and not even a commissioner with authority over all of Germany, but one just within the (state? province? municipality?) of Hamburg. I'm not sure whether that is of any import but it does seem odd to me.
Like, if the city of Atlanta had a privacy commission and ordered Facebook not to do something, Facebook would probably just ignore that since cities in the U.S. do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce. I have no idea whether the same type of limitation exists in this case.
Presumably Facebook weighed the risks before going ahead. We'll see if their decision turns out to be the right one.
Hamburg is a state, and laws are generally executed by the states in Germany. That includes federal and union laws. So that's perfectly normal. I don't know if the the injunction technically applies to all of Germany, but since Facebook doesn't necessarily know if someone is from Hamburg, it probably doesn't matter in practice.
In the long run, you can only operate in a jurisdiction in which you are welcome. Especially when your position is unique like Facebook's. A foreign company that openly ignores the law is not and I can only attribute Facebook's behaviour to arrogance.
What Facebook really believes is that they can escalate this and buy themselves a few months even knowing they will eventually loose. Whether or not it is eventually enforced, they’ve bought some time and they can easily afford the cost.
Bureaucrats are not as powerful as politicians, and I think that the EU is slowly and belatedly coming to the realisation that it needs to control its computing and communications infrastructure, in order for it to preserve independence from the other big powers -- such as the USA and China.
So I think that it's quite possible in the coming years that the German and EU authorities will come to the conclusion that Facebook are too big for their boots and need to be taken down a peg or two -- for example by requiring them to divest themselves of Instagram and other acquisitions, or maybe banning them from the EU entirely and building their own alternatives.
I wish they were banned from the EU, for a variety of reasons. As an American living in Croatia, I can affirm that social media works differently abroad and it is a lot more pleasant.
Facebook is probably exploiting a loophole. The European Commission [1] should make an example out of them.
"More than 90% of Europeans say they want the same data protection rights across the EU and regardless of where their data is processed." [2]
Facebook will lose some in this, but they will reap some benefits, by trying the Germany route, or they would not be attempting this. They probably have some carte blanche (wild card) that they plan on playing.
The EU should make an example of them. Facebook have always been in contempt of the GDPR, and are certainly perpetually violating it.
Data privacy is not a joke. It is a legal framework in the EU. Also, it is about respect of others and not abusing their rights. Yes, it is a right in the EU: "The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates that EU citizens have the right to protection of their personal data." [3]
This order didn't come from the German federal government. It came from the data protection official of one state (Hamburg). It don't think he has too much influence of the German government.
The injunction only lasts three months, during which time the Commissioner will bring the matter to the EDPB. There is no guarantee the EDPB will pursue it.
I have remarked before that Zuckerberg wants to be the Murdoch of the 21st century. To wield his media influence as a "kingmaker" (mostly quietly and behind the scenes, but with those seeking to gain or hold power knowing they will need Facebook's co-operation). And ensuring as compensation an unchallenged position for Facebook, and minimal taxation and other interference.
Facebook would rather be booted out than remove data collection, because they (probably correctly) have determined that a service like theirs cannot exist without advertising unless a global ban is created.
If they are banned in Europe, the new service will be pay to use in order to generate revenue. In which case, nobody outside Europe would use it. In which case, barely anyone inside Europe would use it.
Facebook knows this, and likely Germany knows this. So, they're really deciding whether they want Facebook or any Facebook like site to exist in Germany. I would be very surprised if Facebook lost this battle.
If you think I'm incorrect, just realize that the only way china was able to get their citizens off of Facebook was to block them entirely. And even then, nobody outside china cares to use their social media platforms.
> the new service will be pay to use in order to generate revenue. In which case, nobody outside Europe would use it. In which case, barely anyone inside Europe would use it.
WhatsApp previously was a paid app and had 500 million paying users.
DAU doesn't really matter when you aren't selling attention, the number of paying customers is what matters. TC lists 450 MAU, and this article is where i got the 500 million figure from, which is also listed as MAU [0].
> I would be very surprised if Facebook lost this battle.
What does losing the battle means for Facebook in your view? Continuing to operate in Germany after yielding to it's regulation or, leaving Germany (cutting service for German-based requests) to avoid yielding to the regulation?
Some advertising, sure. I’ve advertised on Facebook and without being able to select people in my area that are engaged to be married it’d be utterly useless to me.
To be fair though, that particular targeting option does not require third party data collection, as people announce engagements on FB, which is where they get the information from.
A huge chunk of internet is supported by some form of advertisement, then they will start blocking germany. Good luck finding a search engine working without ads.
If ads were illegal, there would be a search engine without ads. Unless either 1. web search is not worth the money it costs to provide or 2. markets don't work.
A dominant search engine without ads would have even more trouble with adversarial SEO than Google. The ads set an upper bound to the amount of effort people are going to spend to rank higher.
Living here for a few years, I’m slowly getting used to a lot of really habitual, yet ultimately bad things being (almost) banned. Uncontrolled rents, video surveillance, firing people, taking pictures of people - just to name a few. Imo, not each of these bans is the ultimate good solution, but I love and respect these kind of stances. Facebook would just be one of many like that. It’s not essential, and I can’t imagine germans - or people who came here to live in a country with those values - come out on the streets in its support
I think advertisement of course is a big factor, but it is a smoke screen for running an intelligence service.
A company without state agencies backing wouldn't be allowed to just ignore governments, let alone a big one like German.
Facebook is just an informant network and intelligence gathering op.
They finance it through ads (in a similar vein as they financed Contras with drug money).
I think you missed the boat - the requirement for filters and any company with user generated content having a censorship office in the EU and 1 hour SLA to delete content on request has recently passed without voting. It will be now implemented within a year.
I have to admit I've been waiting for this ever since GDPR came into force.
Facebook can't back down. Unlike other companies, who might be able to adjust their business practices, however unwillingly, into compliance, for Facebook, violating their users' privacy is their business model. Everything. The whole enchilada.
Good for Facebook. It is also a high time American government stepped up its game to protect American company's interest from overzealous and corrupt governments around the world.
Is it possible to add a sizable fine solely for ignoring the government ban - independent of what a court would say regarding the matter of the ban, just for the violation of a ban itself?
Otherwise there is a plausible strategy to drag things in courts for long time meanwhile continuing the - possible - violations as stated by the government.
Ban for FB would be a joy ! But users need to have alternative and none really exists.
But let's start with theory: is there really need for global reach social net site ? You just need family and friends. But that escalates quick... Also just find and add in same portal is a basic feature. So how to split FB ?
94 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadIf this was some random small company you could imagine that the regulators have bigger fish to fry, but in this case this is the #1 offender worldwide when it comes to privacy - if there are "fish to fry", this is the biggest fish, and the regulator's lack of serious action (such as the million-dollar fines everyone is fear-mongering about) suggests they're either incompetent or complicit.
Maybe suing your local privacy regulator in local court is the next step? Open Rights Group is taking that approach in the UK: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/privacy-organ...
Ban it. It's the only way.
Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
But fines and tickets being pegged to income is a good idea. Fixed amounts for fines are really expensive if you don’t make much money. Similarly, they aren’t much of a deterrent if they are a small amount of your income.
Facebook has a distinctly high profit ratio (2020 Facebook revenue was $85 billion, net income $29 billion), so 4% of revenue means a lot less to Facebook than other companies that GDPR restrains. 4% of their revenue is $3.4 billion which is 11% of their net income.
And the potential negative impact of Facebook's negligence in data handling is distinctly greater than other companies, Facebook collects far more data than most other companies and has access to far more personal data. They have somehow managed to convince a huge portion of the world's population to share a significant tap of data into their lives.
Another venue is to go directly after Facebooks European customers and make it illegal for any company to pay Facebook for ads targeting European customers.
In the end this would force Facebook to abandon Europe and lead to local competitors taking over that market weakening Facebooks network effects in non-US markets.
this is an escalation and delaying game and so far facebook is banking on some political saving grace that probably wont come as well privacy is considered an human rights by European courts and not something an simple short term political majority can simply erase because it's convenient for some US megacorp.
If the showdown happens in the highly independent German court system, i just don't see how American political pressure is going to stop the slow but steady path of escalating measures likely to be taken if Facebook refuses to comply with court rulings.
The US needs to implement an equivalent privacy law.
They'd have to close everything in the EU. I can't imagine the rest of the EU would be fine with it.
And that's probably more than Facebook is willing to do - it would mean no advertising in the EU.
Of course, they could defy that order as well and hope that their assets are safe elsewhere in the world. Or, you know. their executives have seen enough of Rome and Paris.
Facebook violates China's content policies. As a result, China blocks Facebook.
Likewise, the EU is welcome to set up a firewall and do the same. Facebook isn't obligated to do anything other than cease operation of local offices.
The EU actually has a huge leverage to push things, it just chooses not to exercise that power most of the time.
The RCEP isn't an internal market. In its ideal outcome it's a partial trade agreement, not all-inclusive. In its present condition, given relations between its members keeps getting worse, it's barely a functioning trade agreement at all. The odds are overwhelming it'll rip apart, and soon. See: China vs Australia & Co.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200813235643/http://slawsonand...
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
> This article discusses how U.S. law affects the enforcement of Article 3(2). In reality, enforcing the GDPR on U.S. companies may be almost impossible. First, the U.S. prohibits enforcing of foreign-country fines. Thus, the EU enforcement power of fines for noncompliance is negligible. Second, enforcing the GDPR through the designated representative can be easily circumvented. Finally, a private lawsuit brought by in the EU may be impossible to enforce under U.S. law.
[snip]
> Currently, there is a hole in the GDPR wall that protects European Union personal data. Even with extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. companies with only an internet presence in the EU, the GDPR gives little in the way of tools to enforce it. Fines from supervisory authorities would be stopped by the prohibition on enforcing foreign fines. The company can evade enforcement through a representative simply by not designating one. Finally, private actions may be stalled on issues of personal jurisdiction. If a U.S. company completely disregards the GDPR while targeting customers in the EU, it can use the personal data of EU citizens without much fear of the consequences. While the extraterritorial jurisdiction created by Article 3(2) may have seemed like a good way to solve the problem of foreign companies who do not have a physical presence in the EU, it turns out to be practically useless.
I mean what are they going to do, invade Silicon Valley with their armed forces? It's not really enforceable. They can set up a firewall if they like and censor Facebook, that's the most they can do.
And hee hee, the freedom-loving EU citizens will riot if they try to censor the internet, we all know that :)
Checkmate, GDPR is not enforceable.
The real way to solve the problem is the US should implement its own privacy laws, and preferably better ones than requiring some stupid annoying cookie popups.
This line to me sounds incredibly sinister. For a long time I've been fearmongering about the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states. It sounds rather disconcerting when Facebook is engaging in diplomacy and brinksmanship with powerful nation states. Even worse, when they're winning.
It's at least encouraging that the European Union is concerned about Facebook's growing power and political influence. The incumbent American institution seems to have all-but ignored this growing problem. Of course there were lots of crocodile tears about "Russian collusion" and "Fortifying the Election", and so on. However through all that, there doesn't seem to have been much questioning of the nature of Big Tech's power, only the direction of its application.
The Australian government was looking for mandatory negotiations with media companies, forcing them to pay for content. They relaxed that "mandatory" clause a bit and added longer periods for notification and negotiation.
In the past year, Facebook has signed revenue-sharing deals with most of the major news platforms in Australia (ongoing) and on Monday of this week, they announced they would be investing $15 million in regional news media. https://www.fool.com.au/2021/05/10/facebook-to-invest-15-mil...
Google has also signed contracts with some of the major media companies.
Google, and the other tech companies should've strong armed, and threaten to quit (and perhaps, actually do) displaying _any_ australian media outlets in their search engines.
I think google didn't want to play chicken because the fees they are asked to pay is relatively small (given their size), and a fight with the aus gov't would've been a bit ugly (because it's an indirect fight that the media conglomerate has managed to strong arm the gov't to fight for them). Alas, it wasn't meant to be, and Google (and others) deemed it a small price to pay - what a letdown for ordinary australians and a huge win for the entrenched media conglomerate in australia.
> Unlikely, Facebook will probably back down like they did with Austraila
Also, you're mistaken about what happened here. Australia blinked. Facebook got most of what it wanted. Only then did Facebook unban Australian news.
Then they can contest the injunction and if wasn't justified, it will be revoked. But they can't just ignore it.
Like, if the city of Atlanta had a privacy commission and ordered Facebook not to do something, Facebook would probably just ignore that since cities in the U.S. do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce. I have no idea whether the same type of limitation exists in this case.
Presumably Facebook weighed the risks before going ahead. We'll see if their decision turns out to be the right one.
In the long run, you can only operate in a jurisdiction in which you are welcome. Especially when your position is unique like Facebook's. A foreign company that openly ignores the law is not and I can only attribute Facebook's behaviour to arrogance.
Bureaucrats are not as powerful as politicians, and I think that the EU is slowly and belatedly coming to the realisation that it needs to control its computing and communications infrastructure, in order for it to preserve independence from the other big powers -- such as the USA and China.
So I think that it's quite possible in the coming years that the German and EU authorities will come to the conclusion that Facebook are too big for their boots and need to be taken down a peg or two -- for example by requiring them to divest themselves of Instagram and other acquisitions, or maybe banning them from the EU entirely and building their own alternatives.
I wish they were banned from the EU, for a variety of reasons. As an American living in Croatia, I can affirm that social media works differently abroad and it is a lot more pleasant.
Facebook is probably exploiting a loophole. The European Commission [1] should make an example out of them.
"More than 90% of Europeans say they want the same data protection rights across the EU and regardless of where their data is processed." [2]
Facebook will lose some in this, but they will reap some benefits, by trying the Germany route, or they would not be attempting this. They probably have some carte blanche (wild card) that they plan on playing.
The EU should make an example of them. Facebook have always been in contempt of the GDPR, and are certainly perpetually violating it.
Data privacy is not a joke. It is a legal framework in the EU. Also, it is about respect of others and not abusing their rights. Yes, it is a right in the EU: "The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates that EU citizens have the right to protection of their personal data." [3]
[1] European Commission Information: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodie...
[1][2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data...
Hopefully this will change and more people come to understand that this is an issue.
Here is the press release from HmbDfPI which describes the collection and usage restrictions in more detail:
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/assets/pdf/2021-05-11-press-r...
The injunction only lasts three months, during which time the Commissioner will bring the matter to the EDPB. There is no guarantee the EDPB will pursue it.
> the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states
I'd say Facebook, Google and a few others are far more powerful than MANY small states.
It's time for WhatsApp to be removed from under the control of this toxic company.
If they are banned in Europe, the new service will be pay to use in order to generate revenue. In which case, nobody outside Europe would use it. In which case, barely anyone inside Europe would use it.
Facebook knows this, and likely Germany knows this. So, they're really deciding whether they want Facebook or any Facebook like site to exist in Germany. I would be very surprised if Facebook lost this battle.
If you think I'm incorrect, just realize that the only way china was able to get their citizens off of Facebook was to block them entirely. And even then, nobody outside china cares to use their social media platforms.
WhatsApp previously was a paid app and had 500 million paying users.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/whatsapp-hits-1-5-billion-...
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
What does losing the battle means for Facebook in your view? Continuing to operate in Germany after yielding to it's regulation or, leaving Germany (cutting service for German-based requests) to avoid yielding to the regulation?
What’s wrong with going back to keyword data and affiliate marketing ?
Duckduckgo is pretty profitable just based on that according to them.
Sure not super profitable like google , but do we want this world in hands of a search engine giants ?
Did people not advertise or buy things without the new internet’s atrocious crimes under the name of personalised targeting ?
They did.
And from then on it will be a slippery slope to add more and more websites to the banlist.
Some light: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...
What I‘m worried about is filtering infrastructure in tech space.
Facebook can't back down. Unlike other companies, who might be able to adjust their business practices, however unwillingly, into compliance, for Facebook, violating their users' privacy is their business model. Everything. The whole enchilada.
Facebook's business model is illegal.
This will be an epic struggle...popcorn ready.
Otherwise there is a plausible strategy to drag things in courts for long time meanwhile continuing the - possible - violations as stated by the government.
But let's start with theory: is there really need for global reach social net site ? You just need family and friends. But that escalates quick... Also just find and add in same portal is a basic feature. So how to split FB ?