Same story from the Associated Press:
Meta agrees to $1.4B settlement with Texas in privacy lawsuit over facial recognition - https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-meta-settl...
Meta agrees to $1.4B settlement with Texas in privacy lawsuit over facial recognition - https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-meta-settl...
> At the time, more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users had opted in to have their faces recognized by the social network’s system.
In general, when I come across some sort of opt in I get offered a choice between allowing something to work and it not working and having some sort of a sub optimal experience. I can't even try before I buy either because once I have consented, the data/image/whatever is already "released".
Most opt-in choices, unless coerced by laws, will be heavy handed nudges at best.
I'm an IT consultant and stand more of a chance than most at making an informed choice but please don't wave "opt in" as some sort of laundering procedure. I am deliberately juxtaposing with money laundering.
I can’t tell you how many newsletters and other BS I unknowingly “opted-in” to, for example.
It's way too easy for companies to mislead consumers about what they are agreeing to.
Much better would be a compromise, that describes both why and what. Though, that will be a lot of text which isn't good either. Hard problem.