Why meta is not fully banned in the EU is beyond me :)
I know banning or forcing meta to obey laws in the US is impossible due to bribes (political contributions), but in the EU I would think meta could at the very least be reined in.
I'm not saying it's not bad in the USA (because it is) but if you think there's no corruption or bribing in EU politics then I don't know what to say.
You're on the right track but instead of losing themselves to fascism what you should more accurately be pointing out, in my opinion, is that in general societies are becoming a lot more open to authoritarian ideologies, whether that's communism, fascism, or similar.
This actually is a result of Meta being forced to obey EU law. Not sure why the article didn't explain things at all, but Regulation (EU) 2024/900 greatly restricts political advertising with typical vagueness, so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.
Information like this should be front-and-center. Call it malicious compliance if one wishes, but if there is one thing that is clear, Meta does not do anything (besides try and make money) without being forced to. A blanket ban on anything political does indeed mean a ban on all sides of an issue, even ones many would agree is positive.
The comment you’re responding to and that you want front and center is plainly wrong. The regulation is about transparency and restricting targeted advertising technics for political advertising. That has nothing to do with the situation at hand, it is meta doing something on their own.
And your point about Meta being forced to act is also wrong, companies aren’t just passive institutions that only react to regulations, they constantly take decisions and actions, and regularly manufacture that type of situation as a way to lobby regulators
No, showing ads for feminism or social issues related plays is not illegal in Europe. Nor fined. And it is practically practiced all around the Europe.
This strategy of "we will lie about what the law enforces, so that we can blame the regulator instead of the company" is getting old.
> so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.
No. Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage" so people will get upset at the regulation instead of the company. So, pieces like this from The Guardian are surely needed.
If cookie consent dialogs have been going on for as long as they have, can they really be called malicious compliance at this point? Seems like people believe that is the actual intent of the regulation at this point.
I personally see fewer and fewer of those original dialogs that had you deny 20-30 items one by one. Most of the pages I land on have the deny all button or have given up on pretending they care.
It doesn't ban political advertising, it requires labeling/transparency, and prohibits targeting without consent or based on categories like race or religion.
It also defines political ad narrowly as placed by a political actor or campaign, or intended to influence some part of the political process, like voting, legislation, or regulatory action.
If that were the case, we wouldn't have far right AI generated political ads everywhere in Facebook. Just one example from France this week[1]
I don't know what motivation Facebook has to automatically limit certain political advertising and not other, but it certainly has nothing to do with EU regulation
the law came into effect due to widespread advertising campaigns on facebook by someone (often thought to be russian government based) for both sides of any culture war topics, presumably to drive division. Things like simultaneously advertising BLM/ACAB + thin blue line.
Meta aren't 'forced' to do anything other than treat the fines imposed by their lack of adherence to the laws of the territories they operate in as a BAU cost. Meta's profits run roughly the same as the GDP of Paraguay ($60.46 billion in 2025) - i.e. that Country's total value added by an economy through wages, profits, and taxes. Their revenue is on track to exceed the Ukrainian GDP next year.
This year Meta will pay up to $16.7bn to settle landmark US legal actions as result of not obeying US law, reporting $2.4 billion in legal fees in Q2 alone.
The sum total of the EU fines issued (read: appealed and not collected) likely won't even exceed Metas legal fees for the 2026 calendar year; i.e.:
* April 2025 - €200m (DMA "consent or pay" advertising model)
* November 2024 - €797.72m (Antitrust re:Facebook Marketplace)
* September 2024 - €90m (Storage of user passwords in plaintext)
* May 2023 - €1.2b (Unlawful EU-U.S. user data transfers)
* January 2023 - €390m (Forcing personalized ads via terms of service)
* December 2022 - €251m (2018 data breach and system design lapses)
* November 2022 - €265 (Inadequate protection against data scraping)
* September 2022 - €405m (Instagram children's privacy)
an AD for a theater play is by no standard political advertisement
Political advertisement in the regulations context is reasonable clearly defined.
An AD for a theater play is in general very clearly _not_ covered by it.
To add to it: Civil rights & feminism (in it's official non hijacked definition, aka. equal fair treatment of man and women) are fundamental rights in the EU, something the regulation very clearly states it doesn't want to impeach on. So arguments that you could accidentally misread the regulation to include banning _non-political advertisement about artistic work covering fundamental rights are a bit absurd_.
Anywhere here is the definition of political advertisement in given regulation:
> political advertising’ means the preparation, placement, promotion, publication, delivery or dissemination, by any means, of a message, normally provided for remuneration or through in-house activities or as part of a _political advertising campaign_:
> (a)by, for or on behalf of a _political actor_, unless it is of a purely private or a purely commercial nature; or
> (b) which is liable and designed to _influence the outcome of an election or referendum_, voting behaviour or a legislative or regulatory process, at Union, national, regional or local level;
(emphasis mine)
So to put it simple: Meta is engaging in censure.
Stretching the term political to include more or less everything (like any topic people have opinions about a politician might speak about) is IMHO a pretty dishonest misinterpretation, especially given that it isn't even everything, but "everything Meta doesn't want to get involved with due to the current political environment".
At best this misinterpretation is due to laziness, at worst pushed by malicious actors in the US.
Given that Meta is a US company and the currently people in power there find this topics quit unpleasant and Metas long history of not faithfully complying with law and allowing all kind of ADs this looks very bad for them.
"Designed to influence…voting behaviour" is incredibly vague. A play with political undertones could absolutely fit that definition. I understand that's not what was intended by the law, but if someone was advertising plays with support for policies you didn't like, you likely would be calling that political.
More relevantly, a broad, vague policy means an EU regulator can prosecute Meta whenever they feel like it if Meta does not go overboard.
it really isn't in practice, only if you take things out of context of the rest of the law, the clearly communicated intend of the law (which matters for judges) and of how law in general works
This also isn't reverse construction in any form, just because something might end up influencing voting behavior doesn't mean its "political". Advertising for artistic work covering common social topics doesn't make this political ads. Nor does advertising for documentations, even if they cover a topic which could influence votes. If you look at the definition in the actual regulation that is pretty clear.IMHO
Why do you think so many big tech companies are registering subsidiaries in Ireland? (Aside form the "Double Irish" mechanism that used to be in vogue more than a decade ago).
Plenty of hands seem to be well greased over there given how long it takes to issue fines for clear&cut violations of EU regulation.
> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article.
reply
> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising."
It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues.
Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU.
This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article.
Yes, exactly: META blames the EU for its failures. (Or useful gullible fools blame the EU because "poor supranational corporations can never do anything wrong")
> Why meta is not fully banned in the EU is beyond me :)
It’s pretty simple - the EU is unable to produce alternatives. This is because they don’t have the software talent for it.
Any talent they do have immediately runs for the SF Bay Area of the United States at the first opportunity.
You want good alternatives to Meta’s products? Pay engineers a competitive salary.
And no, the lower cost of living doesn’t even remotely begin to make up for the difference in comp. Same with healthcare - it’s effectively free in the United States for people who have jobs, especially so for SWEs.
> It’s pretty simple - the EU is unable to produce alternatives. This is because they don’t have the software talent for it.
Honestly, that's not true. Anyone can make a facebook/instagram/whatsapp alternative and the world is full of them. Anyone can even install mastodon and set up their own social network, as America's president has even done: <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/trumps-social-media-site-quietly-admits-its-based-on-mastodon" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcmag.com/news/trumps-social-media-site-quietly-... so it doesn't even require 'software talent'.
What American companies succeeded at was marketing and growth hacking, some of their techniques used are illegal in the EU but they used their network effect of being massive in the US to gain a foothold here. But this has nothing to do with software engineering. Even in the time of facebook's rise Europe was full of competing social networks like hyves.
> Any talent they do have immediately runs for the SF Bay Area of the United States at the first opportunity.
Only those who care about raw salary over everything else. Quality of life, welfare and cost of living is much higher in the EU. The cost of life is huge in silicon valley and that's more a reason why salaries are so high; otherwise people just wouldn't be able to live there.
Edit: I see your edit, yes employers in the US provide free healthcare but only as long as you work there, and you can be fired at any moment and have to pay top dollar suddenly. Not cool when you have a family to support. These are the welfare benefits that make the EU a much more relaxed place to live.
jmclnx · · focus · HN ↗
I know banning or forcing meta to obey laws in the US is impossible due to bribes (political contributions), but in the EU I would think meta could at the very least be reined in.
ActionHank · · focus · HN ↗
fooqux · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
mminer237 · · focus · HN ↗
tygon · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
And your point about Meta being forced to act is also wrong, companies aren’t just passive institutions that only react to regulations, they constantly take decisions and actions, and regularly manufacture that type of situation as a way to lobby regulators
tantalor · · focus · HN ↗
The answer is right in front of your eyes: theguardian.com
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
This strategy of "we will lie about what the law enforces, so that we can blame the regulator instead of the company" is getting old.
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
No. Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage" so people will get upset at the regulation instead of the company. So, pieces like this from The Guardian are surely needed.
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
Other examples of this bullshit being cookie consent dialogs and Apple acting like a victim for being forced to open their platform a bit.
tmp10423288442 · · focus · HN ↗
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
I personally see fewer and fewer of those original dialogs that had you deny 20-30 items one by one. Most of the pages I land on have the deny all button or have given up on pretending they care.
tantalor · · focus · HN ↗
It also defines political ad narrowly as placed by a political actor or campaign, or intended to influence some part of the political process, like voting, legislation, or regulatory action.
rr842j · · focus · HN ↗
I don't know what motivation Facebook has to automatically limit certain political advertising and not other, but it certainly has nothing to do with EU regulation
<a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2026/09/19/the-lucrative-business-of-reactionary-ai-generated-posts-on-facebook_6757721_13.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2026/09/19/the-lucr...
RugnirViking · · focus · HN ↗
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
RugnirViking · · focus · HN ↗
piltdownman · · focus · HN ↗
Meta aren't 'forced' to do anything other than treat the fines imposed by their lack of adherence to the laws of the territories they operate in as a BAU cost. Meta's profits run roughly the same as the GDP of Paraguay ($60.46 billion in 2025) - i.e. that Country's total value added by an economy through wages, profits, and taxes. Their revenue is on track to exceed the Ukrainian GDP next year.
This year Meta will pay up to $16.7bn to settle landmark US legal actions as result of not obeying US law, reporting $2.4 billion in legal fees in Q2 alone.
The sum total of the EU fines issued (read: appealed and not collected) likely won't even exceed Metas legal fees for the 2026 calendar year; i.e.:
* April 2025 - €200m (DMA "consent or pay" advertising model)
* November 2024 - €797.72m (Antitrust re:Facebook Marketplace)
* September 2024 - €90m (Storage of user passwords in plaintext)
* May 2023 - €1.2b (Unlawful EU-U.S. user data transfers)
* January 2023 - €390m (Forcing personalized ads via terms of service)
* December 2022 - €251m (2018 data breach and system design lapses)
* November 2022 - €265 (Inadequate protection against data scraping)
* September 2022 - €405m (Instagram children's privacy)
dathinab · · focus · HN ↗
that _really_ doesn't seem what is happening
an AD for a theater play is by no standard political advertisement
Political advertisement in the regulations context is reasonable clearly defined.
An AD for a theater play is in general very clearly _not_ covered by it.
To add to it: Civil rights & feminism (in it's official non hijacked definition, aka. equal fair treatment of man and women) are fundamental rights in the EU, something the regulation very clearly states it doesn't want to impeach on. So arguments that you could accidentally misread the regulation to include banning _non-political advertisement about artistic work covering fundamental rights are a bit absurd_.
Anywhere here is the definition of political advertisement in given regulation:
> political advertising’ means the preparation, placement, promotion, publication, delivery or dissemination, by any means, of a message, normally provided for remuneration or through in-house activities or as part of a _political advertising campaign_:
> (a)by, for or on behalf of a _political actor_, unless it is of a purely private or a purely commercial nature; or
> (b) which is liable and designed to _influence the outcome of an election or referendum_, voting behaviour or a legislative or regulatory process, at Union, national, regional or local level;
(emphasis mine)
So to put it simple: Meta is engaging in censure.
Stretching the term political to include more or less everything (like any topic people have opinions about a politician might speak about) is IMHO a pretty dishonest misinterpretation, especially given that it isn't even everything, but "everything Meta doesn't want to get involved with due to the current political environment".
At best this misinterpretation is due to laziness, at worst pushed by malicious actors in the US.
Given that Meta is a US company and the currently people in power there find this topics quit unpleasant and Metas long history of not faithfully complying with law and allowing all kind of ADs this looks very bad for them.
mminer237 · · focus · HN ↗
More relevantly, a broad, vague policy means an EU regulator can prosecute Meta whenever they feel like it if Meta does not go overboard.
dathinab · · focus · HN ↗
This also isn't reverse construction in any form, just because something might end up influencing voting behavior doesn't mean its "political". Advertising for artistic work covering common social topics doesn't make this political ads. Nor does advertising for documentations, even if they cover a topic which could influence votes. If you look at the definition in the actual regulation that is pretty clear.IMHO
mhitza · · focus · HN ↗
Plenty of hands seem to be well greased over there given how long it takes to issue fines for clear&cut violations of EU regulation.
thesmtsolver2 · · focus · HN ↗
Wow, Europeans do have a penchant for recursively banning things :)
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
thesmtsolver2 · · focus · HN ↗
> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article. reply
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
thesmtsolver2 · · focus · HN ↗
> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article.
troupo · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
tt24 · · focus · HN ↗
It’s pretty simple - the EU is unable to produce alternatives. This is because they don’t have the software talent for it.
Any talent they do have immediately runs for the SF Bay Area of the United States at the first opportunity.
You want good alternatives to Meta’s products? Pay engineers a competitive salary.
And no, the lower cost of living doesn’t even remotely begin to make up for the difference in comp. Same with healthcare - it’s effectively free in the United States for people who have jobs, especially so for SWEs.
boudin · · focus · HN ↗
tt24 · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
Honestly, that's not true. Anyone can make a facebook/instagram/whatsapp alternative and the world is full of them. Anyone can even install mastodon and set up their own social network, as America's president has even done: <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/trumps-social-media-site-quietly-admits-its-based-on-mastodon" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcmag.com/news/trumps-social-media-site-quietly-... so it doesn't even require 'software talent'.
What American companies succeeded at was marketing and growth hacking, some of their techniques used are illegal in the EU but they used their network effect of being massive in the US to gain a foothold here. But this has nothing to do with software engineering. Even in the time of facebook's rise Europe was full of competing social networks like hyves.
> Any talent they do have immediately runs for the SF Bay Area of the United States at the first opportunity.
Only those who care about raw salary over everything else. Quality of life, welfare and cost of living is much higher in the EU. The cost of life is huge in silicon valley and that's more a reason why salaries are so high; otherwise people just wouldn't be able to live there.
Edit: I see your edit, yes employers in the US provide free healthcare but only as long as you work there, and you can be fired at any moment and have to pay top dollar suddenly. Not cool when you have a family to support. These are the welfare benefits that make the EU a much more relaxed place to live.