[Urgo]

I guess at the end of the day the world's legal system needs to decide if when visiting a website do all requests need to stay on the website itself, or if that website is allowed to use any third party sites to run its business as well. That is the crux of what is going on here, not selling viewing history even though that might be leaked.

The facebook pixel[1][2] that is the center of the legal battles here is routinely used not to sell information to facebook persay, but to allow the website to retarget the website visitor at a later point via an advertisement. For example you visit pateron's website, you might get an ad on facebook later from Patreon.

Now, can (and does) facebook do more with the data that goes along with it, maybe, but that is what the facebook pixel is routinely used for.. not something sinister, at least by the company who implemented it on their website.

By only reading the linked article and knowing about the Facebook pixel in general it really feels like Patreon is being forced to challenge this law not because they think its bad, but more because they are being forced to because they are being sued. Things are a lot more nuanced. Should they have just pled guilty though? Absolutely not.

Personally I think the law should be upheld but the lawsuit against Patreon dismissed.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/gpa/blog/the-facebook-pixel/

[2] https://www.facebook.com/business/tools/meta-pixel/