1. Hitting the big companies for the minor violations is a bit like arresting the mob boss for tax evasion. It's a lot more black and white than arguing whether they performed the right balancing test for legitimate interests (though actually they have previously been hammered for that one too).
2.
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed.
This is true, but it does affect the conflicting requirements it may be subject to. After all the Snowden revelations, it's clear the US data privacy regime is not sufficient, as the US government will take what it wants, and that's why transfers regimes to the US are repeatedly struck down.
The difference is that everybody agrees what the crime of the mob boss is, even if they can't prove it, whereas on Facebook people critique but there does not appear to be a consistent critique that makes sense to me.
Data privacy? That is definitely not what most people are talking about when they critique facebook. The free speech & misinformation lines of thought are directly in conflict.
> That is definitely not what most people are talking about when they critique facebook.
A whole lot of people are talking more about data privacy than free speech on Facebook, though. Is one discussed more than the other? I don't know -- but I suspect most are talking about neither, and which group appears to be the majority depends on which group you tend to hang around more.
Schrems I was 2013, which you'll note is 3 years before the US 2016 election and the covid-19 pandemic which are the two factors that really raised the tempo around the misinformation discussion. It's also 3 years before GDPR was passed, relying on earlier european privacy law and being largely driven by private citizen campaigns (including Europe vs Facebook).
So while the contemporary US discussion is far more dominated by elderly consuming political content, that doesn't mean nobody cared about privacy. You just need to see the furor about Cambridge Analytica or the Snowden leaks to see that that is a concern.
Data privacy is linked to misinformation however in that by tricking you to give up all your data, they know you down to a t. They then sell that info on to propaganda/misinformation outfits and ad firms who can then target too much more efficiently.
Most of the misinformation concerns have to do with what other people are posting, but then people try to contort it into a critique of the platform without saying the quiet part out loud ("we should have a mechanism for deciding on 'truths' and have platforms censor things outside of those 'truths'") because the quiet part is actually unpopular.
1. Hitting the big companies for the minor violations is a bit like arresting the mob boss for tax evasion. It's a lot more black and white than arguing whether they performed the right balancing test for legitimate interests (though actually they have previously been hammered for that one too).
2.
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed.
This is true, but it does affect the conflicting requirements it may be subject to. After all the Snowden revelations, it's clear the US data privacy regime is not sufficient, as the US government will take what it wants, and that's why transfers regimes to the US are repeatedly struck down.