Deutsch
English
Meta, formerly Facebook and still a genuine tech giant, has recently made a scary threat: Either we (EU) allow the company to process our data the same way it did for years, or Facebook, WhatsApp, and even Instagram have no future in Europe. The threat literally took our breath away–never before had we laughed so hard! It's difficult to imagine a company would kill its golden goose without a fight, after all. But what caused this hilarity and what are the opposing views exactly?
Meta's annual report picked an alarmist tone: Should no agreement on the transfer of private data between the EU and the US be reached, Meta would no longer be able to offer its products and services in Europe. Before, the company could rely on so-called standard clauses for the transfer of personal data, but these have been contested by European courts as of late. Consequently, there are growing concerns that the resulting uncertainty may negatively affect Meta's bottom-line. Case in point: Meta's plummeting shares. If there's one thing, well two actually, internet-centric companies have been fearing for the longest time, its taxes (don't we all?) and privacy protection laws. The first diminishes profits, the latter has the potential to disrupt entire business segments. It is therefore understandable that companies get a little jumpy when circumstances change.
If you remember 2020, you'll find the current situation all too familiar. Back then, Facebook already threatened to abandon the European market after the European Court of Justice had found the Privacy Shield agreement that governed the transfer of personal data been Europe and the US invalid. Particular sticking point: Access to "foreign communication" by US security agencies. Status quo: Personal data can be shared with processors in third-party countries but privacy has to be safeguarded and monitoring "limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed". Intelligence agencies, like the NSA, naturally hold a different and far more liberal view.
The mandated level of protection has to be guaranteed by all parties involved or else the transfer will be stopped. So far, government agencies and courts have been struggling to enforce the requirement, possibly for fear of annoying big tech. Recently though, privacy advocates and protection officers have become more persistent, and it is getting increasingly harder for companies to ride out privacy-related issues, not least because of meager tax contributions that further incentivize investigation. This can be a genuine issue for multi-nationals. Not only do they have to comply with domestic regulations (US authorities aren't exactly known for delicacy in these matters) but also foreign regulations, depending on their users nationalities. Make no mistake: The EU's GDPR packs a punch.
Standard contractual clauses are supposed to sufficiently govern data transfers today but they usually entail additional (onerous) obligations for companies and are less watertight and future-proof than desired. Recent trends make even more when sense when viewed against the backdrop of the upcoming Digital Market Act, designed to limit the enormous clout of digital corporations and their rampant collection of data (and the creation of user profiles). Since data mining is the driving force of a billion-dollar business, it is all too understandable that Brussels is currently teeming with lobbyists while CEOs are having sleepless nights. That's also why Meta's report states it would "likely be unable to offer a number of [...] significant products and services, including Facebook and Instagram, in Europe." in case it could no longer rely on new or existing agreements.
This raises the questions of how much privacy a company that is founded on the collection/exploitation of data, like Meta, can stomach. It should give us pause when Meta sees its entire business model in jeopardy because of data protection regulations. Then again, there is a reason it's called "World Wide Web". There has got to be a way to reconcile legitimate data sharing interests with privacy considerations. In any case, privacy watchdog groups consider Meta's victim playing mere strategy and I refuse to believe a company with a revenue on par with the GDP of a small nation is incapable of finding a middle ground. Maybe some in-house tax evasion specialists could be swayed to tackle the issue. Naturally, the laugh was on Meta–and numerous influencers were faced with the potential issue of having to take up regular jobs. What would Europe be like without Meta? Everyday life would likely be different but not to the extent predicted by some (professional) alarmists.
Hard to imagine: A world without meta products!
Many users have already jumped ship and moved from WhatsApp to more "discreet" services. Using alternatives, like Signal or Telegram, should pose little challenge to the average user–and Facebook has been off the radar of most younger demographics for quite some time now anyway. But what about Instagram, home of fluff and fake beauty? Realistically, it'll likely take a couple of months for a substitute to gain a relevant foothold. But there certainly is ample demand, and potential stand-ins with big ambitions and budgets are already chomping at the bit. Perhaps we'll even see a comeback of Google+. With the end of the (digital) world seeming unlikely, legal experts and politicians are facing the situation calmly and with indifference towards any attempts at blackmail. German EU politician Tiemo Wölken called Meta's move an empty threat and cynically remarked that we (the EU) don't need a company whose business model is predicated on spying. Granted, that's a bit platitudinous given that many (free) services depend on the unspoken "service against user data" deal, but the core message is that blatant violations of established law will no longer be tolerated, no matter whether this threatens entire business models or not. After all, why should corporations receive special treatment where private individuals do not?
Meta has now backpedaled and is instead asking for better legal certainty and sympathy. So what about you? Would you consider the "end" of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp a loss?
Um, what's social media again?
During my 70 years on this Earth, I've never really understood it. People publicly sharing (no, promoting) their personal lives, expecting to do it for free, then crying wolf when that (freely shared) personal information is monetized? Wow, how naive. Heck, in most of my 70 years, social media meant physically interacting with people and talking to them.
No, I'm not an elder Luddite. I have 45+ years of IT industry experience behind me. I'm very up to date with tech. I just don't let it rule my life.
Want safer, saner social media? Be prepared to PAY for a subscription service. Or, get outside and actually meet with people.
"Social Media?" Just say NO!
The sooner they go the better for everyone.
Of the "billions of FB users" how many are actually active nowadays?
FB won't be missed neither will Whatsapp or Instagram - they've become far too big and believe their own BS.
I hate - no make that: HATE Facebook and all of its nonsensical maneuvers and money grabbing maneuvers. No company is beyond laws that are established by, or by the representatives, of the very people that Meta NEEDS to survive. They started as nothing, and they will end up as nothing. That's life in the etherial universe.
yes i am tired of facebooks way of doing business i will be glad to switch
I agree Meta has become too powerful. One way people contend with this "information passing/exchanging" problem is to establish lots of fake names and or Alias email accounts with phony names, ages, genders and addresses of 1 main st. anytown, anystate, USA. its a way to cope. I know one person, not me, who has 10 such addresses and accesses the internet at his local library as his solution. one wonders how many other people us this method to protect, in some way their privacy.
About your last sentence. Something would take their place. So regulate within each country. instead of WWW, the DRW or the FRW or the CAW or the INW, you get the idea.
Now that might be tough on countries such as Zambia or Zimbabwe (those examples only because they alphabetically are last on my list of 243 countries) and smarter minds than mine will have to figure it out,
Yet the point is...as soon as data crosses a border be it by satellite or wire or even printed, 'legal certainty and sympathy' has to be regulated to keep the hidden "service against user data" from degenerating into 1984.
I would love to see the EU boot Facebook/Meta out of Europe altogether and in the process set a good example for the US.
I'm in the US but I could definitely live without Facebook. I don't use Whats App, and I'm banned from Instagram for some reason, even though I've never posted anything on there, just viewed a few posts. They want me to jump through hoops for reinstatement and it's just not worth it for me. These tech giants have grown too big anyway and buy up smaller companies to stifle the competition.
Would I consider the end of Facebook ("Fakebook") and Instagram a loss? I would consider it a blessing. Nobody has done more to enable the peddling of misinformation than Mark Zuckerberg, all for the almighty dollar. Kudos to the EU for standing up to him. Here in the United States, we only go through the motions with little real results, and most of that is politically motivated.
As far as privacy goes, when you're on the Internet, you have none. Worrying about it is a waste of time.
I don't live in the EU, however being in the US with government and private companies like "Meta" et. al. amassing user data and either using it for nefarious purposes (US Agencies) or aggregating it creating a profile of an individual, selling it to anyone who has the funds violates the privacy of individuals. They collect far, far more than the user ID and comments or messages from the user. They use that ID, almost universal an email address, to align with data from other apps or firms where a user may make a purchase,including any financial transactions to build a profile and sell it to anyone; even those who's purpose is nefarious.
The EU is far more protective of privacy than the US, and the EU should continue its efforts that may hopefully be duplicated by the US. Then both can shut off the distribution/purchase to bad actors such as China, Russia, and others.