Max Schrems wins privacy case against Meta over data on sexual orientation

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reactions to the ruling and Meta’s “privacy” claims

  • Many see the decision as a major win for privacy and praise strategic litigation against big tech.
  • Meta’s statement that it “takes privacy very seriously” is widely mocked as hollow PR given its business model.
  • Some argue Meta is serious about privacy only as an existential threat to its profits, not as a value.
  • A minority view calls the case opportunistic and framed as a way for the EU to extract fines and stifle consumer tech.

How Meta might infer sexual orientation

  • Commenters speculate Meta inferred orientation from:
    • On‑platform behavior (likes, groups, content interaction).
    • Off‑platform tracking via pixels, “like” buttons, analytics and cookies.
    • Lookalike audiences and recommendation models that cluster similar users.
  • Several note the article is thin on technical detail; the exact mechanism remains unclear.
  • Some stress that even if an algorithm only discovers unlabeled “latent groups,” it can still effectively target protected traits.

Targeted advertising vs privacy harms

  • One camp: targeted ads are useful; seeing gay‑focused ads when you’re gay is a feature, not a bug.
  • Others counter with thought experiments: replacing “gay” with “cancer,” “pregnancy,” or being gay in a hostile country highlights real risks.
  • Debate over whether inferring sensitive traits from legally obtained data is inherently unethical or acceptable “spray and pray” guessing.

GDPR and legal interpretation

  • Article 9 GDPR is cited: processing data revealing sexual orientation is generally prohibited, with narrow exceptions.
  • Some note the court focused on using such information for ad targeting, not on collection or aggregation in general.
  • This leads to concern that platforms might still infer and store sensitive traits but avoid exposing them via ads, making surveillance less visible to users.

Activism and enforcement of rights

  • Disagreement over whether bringing such cases is “activism” or just exercising basic rights.
  • Several argue that using courts to enforce privacy laws is precisely a legitimate and necessary form of activism.