Meta training AI on social media posts? Only 7% in Europe think it's OK
- Reference: 1754569815
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/08/07/meta_training_ai_on_social/
- Source link:
Noyb (None Of Your Business) got Gallup to do a poll of 1,000 Facebook and Instagram users in Germany, and found that just 7 percent wanted Meta to train its AI models on their data. Perhaps more damningly, 27 percent of the users participating in the survey didn't even know that Meta was using their data in this way.
"Meta probably knows that no one wants to provide the data from their social media accounts just so that Meta gets a competitive advantage over other AI companies that do not have access to such data," said Schrems, whose [1]decade plus crusade against the company has been responsible for the [2]collapse of two US-EU data-sharing agreements , along with [3]significant changes to Meta’s data-collection practices in Europe .
[4]
"Instead of asking for consent and get[ting] 'no' as an answer, they just decided that their right to profits overrides the privacy rights of at least 274 million EU users."
[5]
[6]
To comply with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation and its British version, which still exists as the UK GDPR post-Brexit, Meta needs a legal basis for training its AI on users' public posts and comments. As it would rather avoid asking for opt-in consent, its only other option has been to claim that it has "legitimate interests" for the processing.
Noyb's [7]complaints about this led [8]Meta to suspend its AI training in Europe last year , but data protection authorities in the EU and the UK subsequently approved Meta's use of the [9]legitimate-interests basis . In May, as Meta prepared to resume EU training, a German regional court also rejected an injunction application by consumer advocates, saying Meta's GDPR justification is kosher.
[10]Irish privacy watchdog OKs Meta to train AI on EU folks' posts
[11]Max Schrems launches privacy NGO, wins €60k within first 24 hours
[12]Zuck tries to justify AI splurge with talk of 'superintelligence' for all
[13]White House bans 'woke' AI, but LLMs don't know the truth
"Noyb's misguided claims are wrong on the facts and the law," a Meta spokesperson said in an emailed statement to The Register . "Last year we sent more than 2 billion in-app notifications and emails to people in Europe to explain what we're doing and their right to object. We also notified everyone using Facebook and Instagram in the EU again this year."
However, Noyb claims that fewer than half of Meta's users saw those notifications and emails, with only 21 percent of youngsters in particular remembering them. The organization's take is that this undermines Meta's legitimate-interests justification, which partly relies on not confounding the "reasonable expectations" of users as to what will happen to their data.
[14]
Noyb is [15]contemplating a potential class action against Meta that could cost the company billions. Meanwhile, German privacy officials are predicting that Meta's AI practices will end up being adjudicated at the EU's highest court. In that context, Schrems's latest data nugget could end up serving as useful evidence.
Neither the Irish nor UK data protection authorities had provided comment on Noyb's survey at the time of publication. ®
Updated to add:
The UK's ICO told us: "Where organizations are relying on the legitimate interests lawful basis to process their users' data for AI training purposes, they must provide people with clear information about these activities and give them a simple route to opt out of the processing."
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/06/01/facebook_terms_vote/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/21/final_guidance_on_schrems_ii/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/23/metas_payorconsent_model_under_fire/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aJTNlUQhL9a1kkOpVVbHXQAAABQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aJTNlUQhL9a1kkOpVVbHXQAAABQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aJTNlUQhL9a1kkOpVVbHXQAAABQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/23/metas_payorconsent_model_under_fire/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/14/meta_eu_privacy/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/15/meta_resume_ai_training_eu_user_posts/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/22/irish_data_protection_commission_gives/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2017/11/29/schrems_launches_privacy_enforcement_ngo_pulls_in_nearly_60k_in_first_24_hours/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/30/meta_ai_superintelligence/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/24/white_house_wants_no_woke_ai/
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aJTNlUQhL9a1kkOpVVbHXQAAABQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/14/metas_still_violating_gdpr_rules/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Garbage in = garbage out.
Social media posts are, largely, not even worthy of categorising as garbage.
Go figure.
Garbage in .... cabbage out!
FTFY!
93% of Meta doesn't give a shit about you, your opinions, the rule of law or anything. The only care about your data and how they can sell it
7% ?
That suggests 6% didn't read the question properly,
"Meta probably knows that no one wants to provide the data from their social media accounts just so that Meta gets a competitive advantage..."
Competitive advantage from social media accounts?
What a quaint idea.
"simple..."
" .. they must provide people with clear information about these activities and give them a simple route to opt out of the processing."
I'd like to see the variation between Meta's definition of "simple" and the ICO's definition of "simple". (in fact I'd like to see either.... just to confirm either party actually have any knowledge of the term... )
That's another "AI" stuffed.
Crowdsourced data:
Plus side - it's free.
Minus side - you get exactly what you paid for.
Re: That's another "AI" stuffed.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Would apply to most Social Media data subjects
META is stupid enough already
I occasionally use Facebook, generally to talk to a few distant friends via messenger and to look at a few interesting groups including our village group, cricket club and my model railway hobby groups.
Facebook periodically bombards me with suggestions for groups that I might like. The have recently included Donald Trump, several other US politicians and loony political groups, baseball teams, American football teams and some bands that I've never even heard of. Now I have absolutely no interest in US politics, American football or baseball and never have had.
If Meta is so smart, how come it doesn't get this?
PS: I do use an ad blocker.
Re: META is stupid enough already
Now I have absolutely no interest in US politics, American football or baseball and never have had.
I bet some of your contacts on failbook do. It's all it takes, one nutjob to ruin it for everybody else.
I, European, think it is very okay. It makes Meta's AI even more stupid.