Not in my experience with FOIA requests. They likely have a process. Your request will be fulfilled either if they can't find a reason to deny it or if fulfilling it is easy for them. Since Facebook is making up a bogus reason and won't bulge, you need to figure out which regulator is responsible and contact them. Your snark is honestly impressive. However, if snark was going to work, it would have worked already. Facebook probably thinks that all you're going to do if they deny your request is reply with snark, so there's no reason for them to do anything in response at present. Words alone can't hurt them.

> Facebook’s current staff on this is on a higher pay scale than most.

What matters is who sets the policies for the company and the budget for the GDPR department, not how much individual employees who respond to the requests are paid. I doubt the people in the GDPR department set their budget and Facebook's GDPR policies on their own.

> I’ve made my mails impossible to ignore to the point of there being no plausible deniability; the entire GDPR department is aware by now.

I agree that Facebook's employees probably aren't ignoring you in the strict sense that they don't even read what you say. Maybe they forward your emails internally with comments like "Get a load of this guy!", but I don't think that's helping you. If anything, it hurts you because they have more people thinking of ways to deny your request.

> Given what you and others wrote above, it should probably be clear what real actions are going on behind the smoke and mirrors on my site.

If by this you mean that you've contacted a regulator or lawyer, good, I'm happy to hear that. I don't see a reason to hide that, however.

Facebook responds with an overload of legal nonsense to discourage people from replying. I overload them with a lot of non-legal nonsense. In the end I just want my data—it's my legal right.

Grandstanding is not my goal; it's a means of attracting attention to a matter that people have been desensitized to. A secondary goal is to cause internal escalation. In the end, I really just want my data, as way to create a path for myself and others.

Is data posted on FB by other people, which just happens to be (partly) about you, "your" data?

  Unfortunately, that tool only gives me all of the data I put on there myself. So nothing I didn’t already have

  The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller

  Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:

  (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

  (d) the categories of personal data concerned;

  (e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data

Article 15 - "Right of access by the data subject" - is what defines one's right to a copy of personal data, and has no restriction on the personal data one is entitled to access.

Such a centralization comes with the risk of websites only working with one browser, forcing people to chose a certain device, operating system, and browser vendor.

The confusion in your comment is that one would need RDF to do Linked Data. I've written about that misconception here: https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2018/12/28/designing-a-linke...

Don't get me wrong, the Semantic Web community has made mistakes and has not been developer-friendly. But we're not still stuck in the 90s. For instance, XML hasn't been a part of any of this for many years.

AKA instead of "Eval is Evil" we might instead say "XML is Evil"

I encourage you to read the article, where you'll see that I'm arguing from a permissionless innovation perspective, not so much privacy.

Plenty of services are API compatible with Amazon S3 (e.g. anyone can run their own S3 clone) so people can modify existing sites to use S3 with OAuth. Use OAuth to allow the user to delegate access to their S3 service link. No new protocols needed, no big innovations required.

But for this to work on anything other than the most rudimentary data (media files, blog posts, and serialized data) would require completely changing the way all modern applications are written. Databases would all have to change, APIs would all need to follow specific standards, and networks would need to become a hell of a lot more stable, higher bandwidth, and lower latency.

Assume you're Twitter, and you want to map-reduce all of the data of all your users to find out how many people retweeted a user, and then notify those users. Now you need to connect to every user's service provider, get their data, store it temporarily on your own servers, duplicate everything, do your processing, and then write changes back to all storage services for all users. Now do this every second. If you don't, you have to store this map-reduced data on your own service's storage, which violates the principle of only using the user's storage pod.

In fact, data would have to become more centralized to work in this model. Currently, application data exists across a range of services in a variety of networks, all of it being dynamically accessed in different ways before it is accessed by a user. There are dozens of different databases used just to open up the TV Guide on your cable company's set-top box. All of that would have to be centralized in one or two databases in order for the storage and processing to be disconnected.

Not only that, but a lot of data is useless to anyone but the original service provider or original application. Only a Facebook clone would be able to use Facebook's data, and only data relevant to Facebook's ad sales should stay on Facebook's servers, even if it contains "Peter clicked on ad X at Y time". Should there be a separation of what kind of data gets decentralized? Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of what is my data, and what is data about me that a company has originated and created value from? (Is a picture mine because it's a picture of something I own, or is it mine if I took the picture?)

The idea that every component of every application could be completely decentralized from each other is unlikely. Now, what is more in the realm of possibility is doing a Google or Facebook, and creating features that allow exporting or importing all data. But that process is not perfect, and the procedure can take from minutes to days. And to use this data it would still all have to follow standards specific to a particular application.

And again, we already have a lot of these data standards. We have standards for most of the kinds of data that exist today, such as calendar, contacts, e-mail, instant message, voip, office documents, images, and so on. We have standards to synchronize and syndicate data feeds. We have standards to federate accounts and manage permissions. But commercial sites don't natively build these features as interoperable with each other - because, why would they?

Storage and processing of data are intimately connected with the specific applications that use them, and trying to decouple them will result in inefficiency and complication, with no clear advantages.

Your TV Guide is a good example of things that aren't hard. They don't change very quickly, so you can just use a cache. That's easy.

Finding the number of RTs, that's also easy, apart from it being an open world of course. When they RT, they notify you. And you want to display those RTs with your tweet? Just cache those who notified you.

Stable data access standard? That is Solid itself. And the data model, that's RDF.

There are ways that you can go about doing this stuff.

Finally, we're also getting some traction around this in academia, they've been hung up in stuff that isn't helpful for too long.

Finding the number of retweets is also more difficult, because there's other data that gets recorded too. Not only do you have your own data now, you now have the data of everyone else that retweeted you. Is it your data, or theirs? Who is caching it, and how long? How does refreshing the cache effect consistency of each user's views? With decentralized applications you have to choose what kind of functionality you will support.

But, yes, in theory, if you allowed only one service provider to use some given data, you could rely on caching (read: holding a copy of data indefinitely) to a good extent. But as soon as you have multiple using it, you enter the extremely hairy world of multi-master high-availability strong-consistency replication. AKA, absolute hell. But this isn't even the most difficult problem to me.

We already had some good data access standards. The question is, why weren't sites using them to allow data interoperability/mobility? Answer: they didn't want to. So even if you create a technical solution for all of this, the best you will get is the Facebooks of the world publishing a read-only calendar feed, clunky, slow export tools, and single-feature one-way application integrations. Like we have now.

I don't see an ethical or social reason to decouple the data from the services I use, and I don't think the majority of the world population does, either. The only ethical/social concern I have is with the very existence of the service, which is a different concern.