欧盟最高法院于周五裁决，即使用户公开表示自己是同性恋，Meta也不能根据用户的性取向投放个性化广告。此案由长期与Meta对抗的奥地利活动家Max Schrems提起，他声称Meta通过收集用户在网站访问、应用程序登录和其他非Facebook来源的数据来推断其性取向，并利用这些数据向其投放针对LGBTQ群体特定广告，从而违反了欧盟隐私法。Meta否认了这种做法，并表示其将性取向信息视为敏感信息，不会将其随意纳入广告活动。尽管奥地利法院最初裁定Meta有权向Schrems投放与性取向相关的广告，但欧盟法院最终驳回了这一裁决，认为公众言论并非科技公司使用敏感信息进行广告投放的许可。

🤔 欧盟法院裁定Meta不能根据用户性取向投放个性化广告，即使用户公开表示自己是同性恋。

该裁决源于长期与Meta对抗的奥地利活动家Max Schrems的诉讼，他声称Meta通过收集用户在网站访问、应用程序登录和其他非Facebook来源的数据来推断其性取向，并利用这些数据向其投放针对LGBTQ群体特定广告，从而违反了欧盟隐私法。

尽管Meta否认了这种做法，并表示其将性取向信息视为敏感信息，不会将其随意纳入广告活动，但欧盟法院最终驳回了奥地利法院的裁决，认为公众言论并非科技公司使用敏感信息进行广告投放的许可。

该裁决还支持了Schrems的观点，即Meta不仅收集用户在其社交媒体服务上的活动数据，还考虑了用户在互联网上的其他行为。

法院认为，即使Meta能够从用户在线或线下活动中检测到用户是同性恋，他们也不能利用这些信息来投放个性化广告。

Meta表示其非常重视隐私，并提供设置供用户控制其信息的用途。

Schrems的律师Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig表示，该裁决将加强对Meta数据收集的限制和控制。

根据ABC新闻报道，Raabe-Stuppnig在一份声明中表示：“Meta基本上已经为用户构建了一个巨大的数据池，而且这个数据池每天都在增长。然而，欧盟法律要求‘数据最小化’……在这一裁决之后，Meta数据池中只有很小一部分可以用于广告，即使用户同意广告也是如此。”

Schrems的指控可能看似无关紧要，但如果科技公司通过定向广告将用户的性取向公开，尤其是那些同性恋和双性恋违法的国家，以及那些已经成为暴力目标的跨性别者，这对LGBTQ+群体来说存在巨大的安全风险。

虽然科技公司可以通过推断用户的性取向获利，因为这些用户可能更容易购买某些商品和服务，但公司不能为了这种经济利益而将人们的生命和生计置于危险之中，至少在欧盟不能。

该裁决对Meta和其他数据密集型科技公司来说是一个重大打击，它强调了用户隐私和数据保护的重要性，特别是在敏感信息方面。

它还表明，即使用户公开表示其性取向，科技公司也不能利用这些信息来投放个性化广告。

该裁决可能会对科技行业的广告实践产生重大影响，并可能导致其他国家制定类似的规定。

它还突出了在数字时代保护个人信息的重要性，以及科技公司在收集和使用用户数据方面必须承担的责任。

该裁决是保护用户隐私和防止歧视的重要一步，它将对科技公司和用户产生深远的影响。

它也表明，欧盟将继续致力于保护其公民的权利和自由，即使在数字时代也是如此。

Meta cannot target a user’s sexual orientation in its personalized ads — even if they are openly queer and make public statements about the subject, the European Union’s highest court ruled Friday.

The case was brought from longtime Meta antagonist Max Schrems, as Wired reports. The Austrian activist, whose separate privacy case recently led to a $1.3 billion fine against the company, claimed in this case that Meta broke EU privacy laws by pulling data on his sexual orientation via website visits, app logins, and other sources outside of Facebook, using all that data to target him with LGBTQ-specific ads.

Meta denies it engages in this practice. The company says it considers information on sexual orientation sensitive, and doesn’t indiscriminately include it in its advertising efforts.

When Schrems first took his claim to court, an Austrian judge ruled Meta has a right to target Schrems with ads related to his sexual orientation since he previously discussed being gay during a public panel discussion. But the judge also sent Schrems' case up to the EU legal system for its ruling.

Now the Court of Justice of the European Union has disagreed with the Austrian court, saying public statements aren’t a green light for tech companies like Meta to target sensitive ads to users.

The EU court also backed up Schrems’ assertion that Meta just doesn't pull data from users’ activity on their social media services, but also considers their behavior elsewhere on the internet.

'Meta's data pool is growing every day'

Even if Meta can detect that a user is queer from their online or offline activities, the court said, they cannot take that information and use it to target them with personalized advertising. 

In a statement, Meta said it takes privacy very seriously. The company added that it offers settings for users to control how information about them is used.

Schrems' lawyer, Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig, said the court’s ruling will increase limits and controls on Meta’s data-gathering.

"Meta has basically been building a huge data pool on users for 20 years now, and it is growing every day," Raabe-Stuppnig said in a statement, according to ABC News. "However, EU law requires 'data minimisation' ... following this ruling, only a small part of Meta’s data pool will be allowed to be used for advertising — even when users consent to ads."

Schrems' claims may seem like small potatoes. But there are enormous safety risks for LGBTQ+ people online if they are outed by targeted ads, especially in countries where homosexuality and bisexuality is illegal, and transgender people are already targeted for violence.

There may be money to be made by tech companies from deducing someone’s sexual orientation — since that individual may be more prone to buy certain goods and services — companies cannot put people’s lives and livelihoods at risk for that financial advantage, at least in the EU.