A mere 360 minutes ago we were ‘alerted’ to ‘How to opt out of Meta using your Facebook and Instagram posts for AI training’ (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-05/meta-facebook-instagram-changes-using-data-to-train-ai/107335708) and we see “There was a furious public backlash in mid-2024 when it was revealed Meta was using photos, posts and comments stretching back to 2007 to train its AI”. Now I have a decent ‘philosophy’ “Nothing comes for free” and even sunlight now gets a charge. As for Meta, I dropped it from my list after they acted with levels of stupidity and as such I went ‘bye bye Facebook’, I never used Instagram. I am not that kind of a person and there was a chance I might get arrested for blackmail under the guise of “Pay a Bitcoin or I’ll publish more pictures of me” as I have been told that people pay serious money not having to look at me (or hear me sing for that matter). As such Meta is not an issue. Although, should the evidence from some of the class actions bear fruits, I might hit Mr. Zuckerberg up for a few millions (preferably over $15 million post taxation). But that is a matter for another day.
So basically we are given “Meta has quietly introduced a way for Australians to stop it from training its AI on their user data, but the company never announced the change. An “objection” form has been available for more than a year, but digital rights advocates believe Meta does not want people to find it.” Im in the middle of that, as Facebook became so much more complex the statements from digital rights advocates might be true, or might not be exactly accurate. It is up for debate. So whilst we are given “But ABC News has learned an “objection” form has been available locally since July 2025, buried within privacy settings. “You have to go digging through their privacy policies and their support pages … certainly they haven’t been doing outreach to users,” said Tom Sulston from Digital Rights Watch.” Here my response is that this is a free service and whilst many people come to the comedy moment in the senate hearing where Zuckerberg tells the senate “We sell ads” there is a clear setting that their would be more, there is always more, especially as Facebook had $200.966 billion USD revenue in 2025. I still giggle when I opted for this in 2002 to my bosses, they told me to stick to my work. Don’t worry my idea was not as advanced as Facebook was from the beginning and I am not holding any sour grapes against Zuckerberg or anyone. I merely had an idea The fact that I can look at my former bosses seeing the millions they passed on, I get a good smile on my face and I have had over a dozen ideas in the mean time, so I am happy (still poor though).
And whilst we see “And you can understand why. There’s a commercial imperative for [Meta] to get their hands on as much of our data as they can.” And how is that different from what Microsoft does? Lets not forget that is not a freebee. We need to pay for that software and whilst we ponder “The objection form has been available in the EU since 2024, but the ABC has confirmed that no separate announcement was made when it was added in Australia a year later. Nor have there been any reports of users being notified directly by Meta.” And I come back with. This is a free service, so why do they need to? So, whilst I get some of the opposition, the setting of “So it lets them meet some obligations … but at the same time, it doesn’t really fundamentally change anything.” I am of the mind that a free service leaves ‘obligations’ at the front gate. When they start charging $2 a month (or perhaps $5), the setting of ‘obligations’ becomes an actual reality.
So as I see it, we see a lot of hay and no results. I reckon there is a lot more to be had going after these US politicians who have been filling their pockets whilst leaving veterans and victims at the side of the road. At that point we see that there was an opportunity for Meta and they took it, offering a free service. It is everyones favourite setting, but they never want to hand over anything or pay for the privilege. And not once did the ABC article mention the word ‘free’ because that implies that you handed over rights. Is there a case that Meta abused that freedom? Perhaps, but that takes massive amounts of data to get through it all and give us a better judgement on it all.
Have a great day today.
