RT @[email protected]

Breaking: In decisions just out, Meta is not only on the hook for privacy fines totaling nearly €400 million, but it must also β€” quickly β€” find a new legal basis for its sprawling targeted advertising empire. 🧡

https://pro.politico.eu/news/158293

πŸ¦πŸ”—: https://twitter.com/vmanancourt/status/1610652904188174338

POLITICO Pro

Can smart EU lawyers with data protection chops help me understand the basic legal proposition of this case?
I get the Art 6 bases for processing, and how Meta’s latest maneuvers (moving from consent to contractual basis) were legally sketchy and made EDPB mad. 1/
@daphnehk I am not smart, nor EU, nor a lawyer. But I also raised questions about this... and in response got yelled at for daring to question the GDPR.
@mmasnick @daphnehk You got screamed at for misrepresenting the GDPR in a rather Silicon Valley way that had grown pretty old by then, iirc.

@whvholst @daphnehk I don't know if you were the one doing the yelling, but I find an odd characteristic in all the yelling: silly accusations like "silicon valley way" WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL explanation of what it is people think I got wrong.

I continue to stand by my claims, and the lack of actual explanations of any errors, and just nonsense ad homs, suggests... that it's just some sorta weird GDPR fandom.

@mmasnick @whvholst @daphnehk In my experience, "GDPA" is usually an mystical incantation, intended to shut down discussion, rather than part of any chain of reasoning.
@mike @mmasnick @daphnehk That is often true, but I wouldn't accuse Mike of doing so and this discussion was about a specific aspect of the GDPR and a ruling of the Irish DPC, so luckily we aren't at that level of disinformation here.
@whvholst @mmasnick @daphnehk Oh, I didn't *at all* mean that Mike was doing that!