201 points by Aissen 3 days ago | 47 comments on HN
| Moderate positive
Contested
Landing Page · v3.7· 2026-02-28 12:37:38 0
Summary Digital Rights & Fair Technology Advocates
The Norwegian Consumer Council's Breaking Free campaign advocates for digital rights and fair technological futures by coordinating with 70+ international consumer groups to address platform degradation ('enshittification'). The page champions consumer protection, democratic participation, and international governance of digital markets, emphasizing that technology degradation trends can be reversed through policy advocacy and collective action.
To achieve a better digital world, where technology works for people
rather than against them, several steps must be taken:
1. Rebalance power between service providers and
consumers. People should be allowed to control their digital
experiences and decide how they want to use products that
they own. It should be possible and practical to switch to
alternative service providers, or tweak services they already
use to suit their needs and preferences.
2. Tackle dependency on Big Tech. To lay the groundwork for
innovative products and services and pave the way for
alternatives to Big Tech, competition in digital markets must be
restored. Technology based on principles such as openness,
interoperability and portability must be advanced through
strategic investments. For example, the public sector should
leverage its power as a major procurer to support alternatives
to big tech through exploring options for ethical procurement
of technology services.
3. Double down on the enforcement of existing laws. Far
from hindering innovation, regulations provide crucial
guardrails to guide innovation and ensure a level playing field.
Weak enforcement allows big tech to continue its damaging
practices at the cost of freedom of choice, service quality, and
innovation. To remedy this, enforcement of existing laws must
be strong and vigorous. This includes the DMA and
competition laws more broadly, but also other digital rules
such as the GDPR and consumer law.
4. Close the existing legal loopholes by adopting a strong
Digital Fairness Act. Increase legal certainty and address
loopholes in the legislation to better protect people for
instance against deceptive and addictive design, and unfair
personalisation.
"Meta estimates that ten percent of the company’s annual revenue comes from fraudulent ads on its services – amounting to a dizzying 16 billion dollars.
– Meta is earning billions from consumers being scammed. Even if the company gets fined – a process that takes years – the fines we have seen so far only amount to a fraction of these profits. In other words, Meta has no incentive to solve the problem. Meanwhile, the company doesn’t lift a finger to help its users, whether their profiles are misused in the scam ads, or they fall victim to the scams, Myrstad says. "
What is a fraudulent ad?
If a massive health influencer promotes a "healthy" powder that in labs does not show health benefits - do we consider it a fraudulent ad?
I'm sure this will be downvoted but the fact that the front page of this site features photos of the organizers means to me, this is a promotional movement for these people, not a serious organization. Seeing their faces filling up large portions of the front page means the actual supposed point of their supposed purpose is being subverted for self promotion.
And somehow they are allowed to continue operating, and we accept them saying "we couldn't possibly actually police all this content! There's just too much of it. We're too large for such concerns!"
I really wish the rest of us could turn around and say, to their faces "That sounds like a you problem"
It should be easy: 10% of revenue from fraudulent ads? Fines amounting to 15% of the total revenue. This way, Meta will be incentivized to invest ~5% of its revenue on getting rid of that 10%.
From the sources I have seen, that 10% was a projection for 2024, with goals to significantly reduce it in 2025 and 2026 onward. It also includes "banned" goods, which are not necessarily fraudulent nor illegal. I have not seen any data on whether or not Meta has achieved their goals of reducing fraud and banned goods advertising.
On Facebook? It's ads for products where they do a bait and switch or claim to have some kind of "difficulty" and never ship a product or ship some garbage instead.
Example: My wife saw an ad for decorative skulls that were made in such a way that you can safely put them in a campfire for Halloween. They had a video and everything, it looked pretty good. She orders a set and they get delayed, then she gets and email saying that US Customs would not let them in the country and they instead ship a $0.50 plastic Christmas tree ornament instead and immediately ghost her.
We reported the company to Facebook but it continued to run for weeks. I've also seen ads for $500 Aventon E-bike "closeout" that's clearly a scam, reported it, and had no action from Facebook. Another ad for an all metal "puzzle kit" of a V8 engine listed for $50 that I guarantee is fake. Every day I get ads that would not have passed the smell test from any reviewer yet continue to run.
the front page does not feature the organizers, it features links to a video and a seminar, and the seminar and the video happen to feature the speakers. featuring speakers of a seminar is what i expect, because i want to know who is talking.
Core mission: publishing research, sending open letters to policymakers, advocating for digital rights and fair practices, making information about consumer rights publicly available
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Page links to 'Breaking Free' report PDF and open letters to Norwegian authorities, EU institutions.
Navigation provides access to consumer guides, tips, and educational materials ('Tips og rettigheter').
Page explicitly states organization sends letters to policymakers, engaging in public discourse.
Website includes 'Rettigheter' (Rights), 'Forbrukerpolitikk' (Consumer Politics), and educational resources.
Inferences
Publishing research and policy letters supports freedom of expression and information rights.
Open access to reports and guides facilitates public understanding of consumer/digital rights.
The Breaking Free campaign demonstrates commitment to public discourse on digital fairness.
Strongly advocates for international order protecting digital rights; coordinates across EU/EEA, UK, US to establish governance protecting consumer-digital rights at systemic level
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Page explicitly coordinates with 70+ groups across EU/EEA, UK, and US.
Sends letters to policymakers in multiple jurisdictions demonstrating international governance engagement.
Report addresses global/systemic issue (enshittification) requiring international response.
Inferences
International policy coordination supports right to social and international order protecting rights.
Crossborder coalition demonstrates commitment to global governance of digital rights.
Content advocates for 'fair technological future' and resistance to exploitation; affirms universal principles of dignity and international cooperation
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Page announces 'Breaking Free: Pathways to a fair technological future' report addressing enshittification.
Describes coordination with 'more than 70 consumer groups and other actors in Europe and the US'.
States 'Together...we are sending letter to policymakers in the EU/EEA, UK and the US.'
Inferences
The international coalition structure suggests commitment to global rights-protecting principles.
The framing of 'pathways to a fair technological future' affirms dignity and equality as foundational.
Advocates democratic participation through direct engagement with policymakers; citizens/consumers participating in governance decisions about digital futures
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Page states 'we are sending letter to policymakers in the EU/EEA, UK and the US'.
Links to letters provide direct evidence of engagement with government decision-making.
Organization enables citizen/consumer participation in policy formation.
Inferences
Policy advocacy demonstrates belief in and support for democratic participation.
Open publication of policy letters enables others to engage in democratic processes.
Protects against misuse of corporate/platform power in digital context; enshittification is systematic corporate misuse of dominant power; advocates guardrails against such abuse
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Report directly addresses 'enshittification' — degradation of digital services by platforms, a form of rights misuse.
Policy advocacy aims to constrain corporate power in digital markets.
Inferences
Report's focus on enshittification demonstrates concern with preventing misuse of corporate power.
Policy letters to authorities seek guardrails against digital rights misuse.
Participation in digital culture and technological progress: advocates for 'fair technological future' enabling broad participation in digital advancement
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Report discusses 'fair technological future' implying participation in technological progress.
Page addresses digital products/services as cultural-technological infrastructure.
Inferences
Advocacy for fair digital systems enables broader participation in technology.
Site provides access to reports (Breaking Free PDF), policy letters to authorities, consumer guides, and educational materials; open publication and distribution of information
International coalition structure (70+ groups across EU/EEA/UK/US) visible; linked reports and policy letters demonstrate commitment to rights-protecting governance
Landing page provides equal access to information and resources; links to complaint guides and consumer tools suggest institutional commitment to equal treatment
Navigation includes 'Digitale rettigheter' (Digital rights) section; links to privacy policy (Personvernerklæring) provide access to privacy information
Navigation includes tools for comparing financial products and utility costs (electricity, transport calculators) protecting consumer economic interests