Apropos of little (with apologies), it's remarkable how much less I loathe people since I nuked my Facebook account. I hadn't even been a regular user for years, but walking away--which involved changing my password to something I didn't save and an expiring email address rather than deleting my account--has just generally improved my attitude about both individuals I know and people in general.
I object more to the data collection and sale that <i>allows</i> Facebook to target ads like that, than the actual targeting of ads (which I would block anyway) personally.
"Meta said it disagreed with Ms O'Carroll's claims, adding "no business can be mandated to give away its services for free.""<p>Except that is what O'Carroll just did.<p>If Meta disagrees with O'Carroll's claims then why settle. Why not fight.<p>Facebook used to have a marketing soundbite/Zuckerberg quote something like "Facebook will always be free."<p>Now Meta claims it is not free.<p>BTW, the "Careless People" book is available for free in audio book form, read by the author, from many particpating public libraries.
What big tech is doing is much closer to this:<p>- <i>Ads</i> is a substance, very invasive and toxic, that alters the behavior of its users. They consume ads unwillingly, when the latter is mixed into their drinks and food. Ads are often tailored to different groups of users.<p>- <i>Advertisers</i> are the manufacturers of ads. They do extensive research into how to make the ads more invasive, and pay a lot to get the ads delivered to the users.<p>- <i>Content</i> is a type of food that's designed to be highly addictive. It's mostly made of sugar, artificial colors to make it look appealing, and of certain chemicals to invoke strong emotions, usually negative. While content isn't designed to be toxic, it is. The prolonged use of content destroys the ability to focus and deregulates control of emotions. Its users become impulsive, with a very short attention span. These weaknesses make it easy to serve them ads.<p>- <i>Big Tech</i> is the international ads cartel. It creates so called social network platforms that attract users in billions, profiles and tags them, manufactures <i>content</i> tailored to different groups, and lets advertisers serve ads for a fee.<p>Because this entire industry works at the mental and emotional levels, as of 2025 its activity isn't considered a crime.
I really think we should have a EU-wide ban on targeted advertising. Targeted advertising only works if it is opt-out. Ask random people on the street wether or not they want to be tracked and have their data sold and the overwhelming majority will tell you no.
"Facebook and Instagram have a subscription service in most of Europe, where users can pay monthly so that they don't get ads on the platform."<p>As far as I can see that doesn't alter anything in this judgement.
'She said that she did not want to stop using Facebook, saying that it is "filled with ... entire chapters of my life".'<p>At some point you have to ponder wether the right choices were made when you write up entire chapters of your life on an ad-broker's website.
I'm glad to see a court agreeing that targeting specific characteristics of people and then Facebook using their knowledge of individuals to serve them ads is targeting specific individuals.
Slight tangent but while this is bad with disclosed ads, I think it's even worse with algorithmic feeds. A lot of users don't realize that not only their feed is heavily personalized, but the "top comments" are also selected just for them.<p>This bias will be implemented in LLMs sooner or later. Combined with the current misunderstanding of "AI" by the general population, it makes me worried about the future of misinformation.
From the caption I thought there was someone (like ex-boyfriend) who targeted ill-meaning ads (like an ad for funeral services) against the woman, but it turns out it was not so bad.
Luckily, ads that steal people's credit card's info are allowed and not removed by Facebook even after multiple reports. That's how you become one of the richest man?
Someone here on HN should create a service that allows for easy "click and sue" Big Creepy Tech.<p>Oh, and get someone from Stanford to be co-founder. Instant legitimacy and money.
> Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalised advertising.<p>It could just as well be free without personalized ads but with regular advertisement.<p>As far as I know Facebook is extremely profitable.
As far as ads and Europe are concerned, I'm astonished how Kaufland and Lidl get away with distributing weekly unsolicited physical leaflets to every doorstep within certain radius of their shops which is the case at least in Poland and Germany. I do not want to be on their blacklist or whitelist, simply do not fucking deliver me this paper okay?
Good.<p>> She said the adverts she got "suddenly started changing within weeks to lots of baby photos and other things - ads about babies and pregnancy and motherhood".<p>> "I just found it unnerving - this was before I'd even told people in my private life, and yet Facebook had already determined that I was pregnant," she continued.<p>Facebook likely knew she was pregnant by covertly eavesdropping on her life via her phones microphone. When these companies started using their apps to eavesdrop on your entire life via your phone, I immediately deleted them. No way is that creeptastic shit allowed in my life. I mean, imagine talking about doritos in a nostalgic context only to have amazon suggest you buy them when you open the app. Deleted. The only apps on my phone are banking and utility. Bye Felicia.