Discussed multiple times in the last couple of months. There seems to be nothing new in this submission, it's just somebody churning away at the content marketing mill.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403583

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37173344

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37045185

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36756101

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403633

Big tech - and Meta's approach to user data security - has long felt too powerful for Europe's data protection authorities to control. Given this, Norway's success is showing other European countries the way, and this points to a significant improvement in EU citizen personal data protection in the coming years.

I want to ask here: Is there any study/experiment about what way say offline in proximity of our Android mobile devices leads to ads in Google?

My collegue made an experiment with his wife. Put their phones down, talk about different kinds of CRMs and DID NOT SEARCH for that stuff. Lo and behold, ads about different kinds of CRMs start popping up.

I'm skeptical to these things and initially didn't believe. Then people I ask confirm - hey, yeah, I was only talking about it, now I get those ads! He said he was talking non-English, however CRM software names are english.

Coincidance?

I would love to hear some experiment results in this direction.

Facebook is a $815 Billion company. This is merely a slap on the wrist. Honest question, why not 100x? They can and will pay, and other governments can follow and end this lizard way of doing business

Just make it an even 1% of revenue per day going up 1% every other day.

They should double it every month.

It's when these matters start moving from civil to criminal and directors fear criminal proceedings that enforcement is taken seriously by organisations that apply every decision through the lens of is the fine the cost of doing business?

This isn't a user privacy breach. Recommending posts is a core functionality of social media. People understand that the site learns your interest. It's not a privacy breach if TikTok learns you like watching piano videos. Nor is it a privacy breach if X learns you like to see posts from artists.

maybe this could be the next way to pad their sovereign wealth fund, when the oil is gone.

When reporting fines for large companies in media, these should also be expressed as percentage of daily/yearly profits or revenues, to highlight the fact that most of the time they won't have any effect.

$30 million per annum wouldn't even represent a bump against their revenue. Until the fines are revenue based, it's not going to matter.

If we boldly link market cap and individual net worth, then this is like someone with a net worth of $1m being fined 12 cents per day. From Meta's point of view, what makes this more than just an additional tax?

I am curious. How does this work?

Do big-tech companies actually pay these fines? In cash? By daily bank transfer? Direct debit?

And to whom? Margrethe, the Queen of Denmark? Or to some bank? Or are bank notes scattered to wind in Copenhagen square so the people can stuff them into their pockets?

Or do the governments of countries whose laws are broken have a nod-and-wink tacit agreement that "fines" are just numbers for the press to print and assuage our sense of outrage. Aren't we just starting to use numbers like this as abstract tokens of justice?

I'd like to see Zuck made to personally lug an enormous pirate's chest of treasure up to the gates of Copenhagen, or face blood-eagling at dawn.

META privacy breach are nothing when you have App like TEMU ---> https://grizzlyreports.com/we-believe-pdd-is-a-dying-fraudul...