- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- hackernews@derp.foo
You must log in or register to comment.
Well, TikTok made an estimated $9.4B in revenue in 2022 making that fine 3.7%. That’s pretty big.
Yeah i would imagine as a percentage of their income it is at least a double digit %
If it’s not percentage based that’s just the cost of breaking that law if you feel like it.
https://kbin.social/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/457804/-/comment/2365849
Because 3.7% of their (last year’s) yearly revenue totally isnt important at all, nope! It’s not like it’s 0.3% from the fine’s maximum allowed percentage of 4.0% or anything.
deleted by creator
not nearly enough
Good start though, right? More than most fines for similar infractions
How were those other fines percentage-wise? According to another comment, this is a 3.7% fine.
That’s cool. Sounds like a win for data security (How do I translate Datenschutz to English?)
Datenschutzgrundverordnung (DSGVO) is called general data protection regulation (GDPR) in english, so data protection seems to be fitting for the context.
Ah damn, I forgot. Thanks!
“Oh no. Anyways…”
-TikTok
This is the best summary I could come up with:
TikTok has been fined €345m (£296m) for breaking EU data law in its handling of children’s accounts, including failing to shield underage users’ content from public view.
The Irish data watchdog, which regulates TikTok across the EU, said the Chinese-owned video app had committed multiple breaches of GDPR rules.
The Duet and Stitch features, which allow users to combine their content with other TikTokers, were also enabled by default for under-17s.
TikTok said the investigation looked at the company’s privacy setup between 31 July and 31 December 2020 and said it had addressed the problems raised by the inquiry.
All existing and new TikTok accounts for 13- to 15-year-olds have been set to private – meaning only people approved by the user can view their content – by default since 2021.
This meant it had to include a proposed finding by the German regulator that the use of “dark patterns” – the term for deceptive website and app designs that steer users into certain behaviours or making particular choices – breached a GDPR provision on fair processing of personal data.
The original article contains 528 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
