Facebook uses Australian adults public photos/posts to train AI, without opt-out

You are correct. I just wanted to add that regardless how the US company alters their ToS, they are still obliged to follow the law of the land where they offer service. Which is why they get all the time legal troubles in the EU. But yeah. once your photos were already processed it's a bit late to sue.

> If you don't like that viewpoint then maybe you shouldn't entrust your private data to an American company that can alter the deal, and you should just pray that they don't alter it further.

I don't use Facebook, and I think my government should regulate and fine Big Tech companies like Meta when they breach users' privacy.

Countries can enforce laws on American companies. See: X and Starlink in Brazil. You can pursue companies economically, you can use technical countermeasures preventing them from operating in your jurisdiction, and you can use the legal system if their owners, directors, or employees enter any jurisdiction your reach extends to.

That's all very much for this specific scenario, but the tools exist to enforce laws, if the laws exist. Being a fanatic is not a requirement for any idea in this comment.

Exactly my point.

The issues with your position is: - Basically no one reads the terms they are “agreeing” to. This breaks the legal and logical principle that you can’t agree to something when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to. - The agreement is basically forced. Either you agree or you can’t use the website. Sure that’s fine if you can use another website. However, for example with Facebook marketplace there is no realistic alternative in many places. Where I live our craigslist equivalent was all but killed by fb marketplace. Same for organisation of events. Also if almost every website has the same invasive policies then you don’t really have a choice but to agree. No choice once again breaks one of the fundamental principles of an agreement. - The language used in those agreements are difficult for normal people to read and understand. This both discourages them from reading it and again, you can’t agree to something if you don’t understand what you’re agreeing to.

I’m not saying legally fb is in the wrong. Clearly the legal system as it is today doesn’t care whether you understand what you are agreeing to. I’m saying they are acting unethically, and that their behaviour is a scourge on society.

Do the HN terms of service permit me to exfiltrate and transform your comment to use near verbatim in my upcoming novel about slimy legalistic carpetbaggers grifting regular run of the mill average members of the public?

It’s a public company.

If it ever actually turns out to be a problem, we’ll just make a law that requires them to delete the data / model.

Banning everything because we don't like change isn't a great plan either.

The modern society is a product of the Industrial Revolution, which had many nasty side effects (destroyed the traditional structure of the society, poisoned the air and the water, led to large swaths of land being damaged by mining etc.)

Yet if, say, Prussia or France decided to ban industry early on because of the very real harms observed in England, they would have been conquered mercilessly by their foes later.

Technological bans often come at a price of stagnation. Facebook is at least a bit under Western control and can be regulated. Chinese AI labs won't be, and we will only see their results when smart missiles start raining on our heads.

We didn’t know about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s until recently, and even now it’s still being debated.

If it turns out to be proven, then it will be banned.

What alternative do you propose? Banning every chemical in society, just in case it is linked to a disease one day?

So I live in a nanny state, and I hate the fact that my freedom is restricted. Gun ownership of any kind is all but prohibited, for example.

However I really wish the discourse around this stuff would shift a little bit. I want my government to protect me from huge tech companies and the massive infringement on our privacy, community and culture. Like the government should serve the people, both by not restricting the freedoms of individuals too zealously, but also by protecting people from genuine threats that they can’t or won’t protect themselves from, such as social media companies exploiting network effects that make it basically impossible for users to make alternative choices.

If you think otherwise please explain it to me because I really, genuinely want to understand.

It is possible that the 'nanny state' is both good in some ways and bad in others. You and I benefit in uncountable ways every day from the protections granted by such a system, without realizing it.

Nuance is tough. It is easier to find a simple thing to blame and advocate against it. But nothing is simple -- governments are composed of people and those people have inside them conflicting motivations, each person's different than the other -- and most of them are not malicious. The same with business, and with the public.

Let's look at issues on their own and not try to categorize everything as part of a black and white choice.

It’s always going to be easier to ban every new invention.

But public policy shouldn’t be based on what’s easiest, it should be based on what’s best for society, and that requires considering the trade offs.

Right now there’s no evidence that anything Facebook are doing causes real world harm, so the trade off favours allowing it.

If that changes, then policy can change at the same time.