I really don't get this attitude. I 100% endorse everyone's right to uninstall every Meta app and never use them, and to block their on-page trackers on third-party websites with an adblocker, all that. But the notion that there should be some sort of EU-protected "Right To Use Facebook For Free"... nah. Using the apps inherently shares data with the company whose servers you're using. Don't like it, that's fine, there's only one correct recourse: Don't use it.

Also, if Facebook's users were all paying for it (and all its competitors), there would be no advertising on it, and incentives in social media would be aligned much better. The government which requires companies to provide their service "for free" would be actively working against that better world by pushing the ad-supported model, which they clearly hate, as the only one.

But Meta is in a very special position. They have enough user data to pinpoint ads without having to trade data with anyone. They are large enough that they can easily manage all their ad sales in-house.

They if anyone should be interested in really strict regulation. Because if everyone just has to use the data they have in house for good reason (Facebook does have my age, city, interests etc and I accept that!) then facebook has an extreme advantage in advertising.

I think any kind of enforcement against Meta has to go through Ireland because of that. The EU is a treaty, not a country. It is always local authorities that have to enforce legal action.

Household consumption as a % of GDP in Norway is 30% compared to 68% in the US. The Norwegian public sector produces 70% of Norway's GDP. You're underestimating to what extent these policies reflect real differences in how countries are run. In the good old USA Facebook et al are allowed to do what they do because people keeping those credit cards busy is what keeps the economy up. Doesn't work that way in Norway and a decent chunk of Europe.

So, famous alcohol brands launched soda water, mineral water, and even glassware. One company has music CDs. They advertise those instead.

Nevertheless, in cases where EEA countries are part of union law, decisions can be appealed to EU courts, and decisions there will apply to the whole area.

At least I think that’s how it works, it’s a bit messy at times.

As for other central EU features like open market, currency, sovereignty (particularly naval), freedom of movement, we are on the outside of the union and I wouldn't sloppily consider or phrase us an EU country.

Ironically, I've posted there a couple of times in a way that (barely) went against their own groupthink and got downvoted like crazy.

My personal theory is that we have been mingling with AI generated content long before Chat GPT was revealed to the public, at least in the last 10-15 years. And that Chat GPT was not the first on the block manipulating people with the technology. I just think this based on the fact that the NSA was spying on people long before whistle blowers revealed it, same has to go for AI manipulation by various government agencies and non government "bad actors". We may get confirmation of this within the next 10-15 years if someone blows a whistle.

One could probably sue them in the country the behavior was documented.

The equivalent case would be if A assaulted B in Norway and flee to Chicago. B could report the crime and sue in the UK, get a legal ruling, and the Norway legal branch would then deal with the US branch to bring something out of the situation (compensation, equivalent punishment in the US, extradition etc.)

Within the liberal framework, most strongly embodied by the US, rights are fundamentally meant to be negative rights. In other words, they are better conceived of as limitations placed on the state. Freedom of speech means the state cannot dictate what you can or cannot say. The right to privacy means the state is limited in its capacity to rummage through your mail, enter your house, etc.

Europeans tend to view what Americans view as privileges as rights. Positive rights.

> Free speech is always in conflict with other rights. You don't get to say whatever you want on a forum someone provided and deemed to be child friendly for example. Or rant about atheism and corruption of the clergy on a bible studies forum.

That isn't what freedom of speech is as it's conceived in the liberal framework. In the US, there is no law preventing any of those platforms from regulating speech within their own domains. The right simply ensures that the state is itself incapable of regulating speech.

> Going to a nude spa necessitates giving up some right to privacy. You expect the minimum necessary to provide the service you want.

You could argue that no spa necessitates nudity whatsoever. It isn't simple to define the boundaries of what is minimally necessary in order to provide a service. Imagine that you're watching a streaming service which plays ads. If the streaming service collects some information related to your demographic, watching habits, etc, and is able to serve you targeted ads that pay 5x more than if they were anonymous/general ads, many consumers would happy accept that if it meant that they had to watch only half as many ads.

You act as if there is just a relatively straightforward right to privacy, but what's really happening is that the state would be putting (somewhat arbitrary) limitations on the boundaries of what two parties are allowed to consent to (in this case, between the viewer and the streaming company).

American morality tends to favor limitations on the state rather than limitations on the way two consenting parties may engage with one another.

Sorta??? It's not like I volunteer my time to my job.

I have family my age and older who don't never use Facebook and barely interact with technology and they get by life just fine.

Social media addiction isn't a right, and just because you have a share to Facebook or Twitter integration doesn't mean you have to use either.

> Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services.

That's covered in the "or otherwise relinquish your rights" part. Privacy is a right, you can't sell or relinquish it, in exchange or donated, doesn't matter.