this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37724 readers
644 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
49
Meta tells court it won’t sue over Facebook feed-killing tool—yet (arstechnica.com)
submitted 4 months ago by brisk@aussie.zone to c/technology@beehaw.org
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Highlights:

Krishnan told Ars that "Meta is trying to have it both ways, but its assertion that Unfollow Everything 2.0 would violate its terms effectively concedes that Zuckerman faces what the company says he does not—a real threat of legal action."

For users wanting to take a break from endless scrolling, it could potentially meaningfully impact mental health—eliminating temptation to scroll content they did not choose to see, while allowing them to remain connected to their networks and still able to visit individual pages to access content they want to see.

According to Meta, its terms of use prohibit automated access to users' personal information not just by third parties but by individual users, as a means of protecting user privacy. Meta urged the court to reject Zuckerman's claim that Meta's terms violate California privacy laws by making it hard for users to control their data. Instead, Meta said the court should agree with a prior court that "rejected the argument that California law 'espous[es] a principle of user control of data sufficient to invalidate' Facebook’s prohibition on automated access."

Much more in article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm extremely OOTL with this, and now, intrigued

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

It's terrible how companies like this can do anything they want with impunity.

This tool seemed so beneficial.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Thanks, that was a good read. FB is so disgusting. Had I known a tool like this existed I may have stayed. I haven't used for at least 5 years, but I kept the messenger lite app to stay in touch with people via chat. They killed the app and that was it for me. The feed is garbage. Meta is garbage.

I've read the ars article linked too, and I think this attitude is so petty- most people aren't power users or inclined to customise their social media/browser experience. The amount of people who would use the tool would be minimal in comparison with the majority who happily eats their feed without question. Meta is greed incarnate.