Has anybody considered the idea that boosts from non-Meta properties to Threads could legally be used to build ad profiles? We already know they do that sort of account association with non-fedi accounts.

EDIT: Looks like that’s absolutely the plan. From the privacy policy

"Information From Third Party Services and Users: We collect information about the Third Party Services and Third Party Users who interact with Threads. If you interact with Threads through a Third Party Service (such as by following Threads users, interacting with Threads content, or by allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content), we collect information about your third-party account and profile (such as your username, profile picture, IP address, and the name of the Third Party Service on which you are registered), your content (such as when you allow Threads users to follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in your posts), and your interactions (such as when you follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in Threads posts).

We use the information we collect for Threads for the purposes described in the Meta Privacy Policy, including to provide, personalize, and improve Threads and other Meta Products (including seamless personalization of your experience across Threads and Instagram), to provide measurement, analytics and other business services (including ads), to promote safety, integrity and security, to communicate with you, and to research and innovate for social good."

https://help.instagram.com/515230437301944?helpref=faq_content

EDIT 2: After doing a little more thinking, I’ve come to the conclusion that the general narrative about Threads plan to steal users from similar federated services ignore the fact that it’s certainly cheaper to let the volunteers of the fediverse take on the moderation costs while they monetize the data. Though the two certainly are not mutually exclusive.

  • Johnny@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just because data can be accessed that doesn’t mean it is legal to collect and process it.

    • chris@l.roofo.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe it is useful to differentiate between what is legal and what is possible. And even if it not legal it is easy to harvest data from the fediverse. It doesn’t have to be meta. It could be a state government. It is public and everyone should act as if the data is already harvested.

      • Johnny@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. I just think we shouldn’t turn this observation on its head to give the impression it’s somehow OK to break data protection laws just because there is no technical prevention.

        That’s actually how some people think. Wasn’t sure if you were one of them.

        • chris@l.roofo.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone has a case it is a good idea to apply the laws. But you first have to find you that laws have been broken and by whom.