Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamacyborg | Hacker News Reader

What loopholes?

- digital services act mandates interoperability in chat, but apparently companies can put require obnoxious terms for interoperating parties such as sharing their users IP addresses - which service is going to agree to that if a very large portion of the alternatives target people not wanting to share data with Facebook?

- pay "ridiculous price" or accept ads & tracking instead of allowing to disable tracking

i haven't heard about the first one yet. i totally believe it, but do we have an actual example of facebooks demands? are they documented somewhere?

the second one i experience daily and it's driving me nuts. i am sure it is actually illegal, but i have yet to find an explanation on why it should be allowed or a convincing legal argument in why it actually violates the rules. something that i could send to violators.

the explanation is here:

https://noyb.eu/en/frequently-asked-questions-about-pay-or-o...

NOYB have raised a complaint on the second one for a publisher in the Nordics.

https://noyb.eu/en/nordic-media-giant-schibsted-switches-pay...

Cool? So one down, how many to go? Why don't they get the same level of scrutiny as, say, Facebook?

they already won the first instance in austria:

https://noyb.eu/en/court-decides-pay-or-okay-derstandardat-i...

but the banner is still there so they are still fighting.

link found thanks to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48492358

The "legitimate purposes" pre-ticked hidden box on some cookie dialogs, for one.

AFAIK, those are not legally compliant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com