4 ms·
I politely disagree. The law is clear that it can go on with user consent as long as there is provision for deletion and download. Which means it is going to be
by riantogo 8y ago
I politely disagree. The law is clear that it can go on with user consent as long as there is provision for deletion and download. Which means it is going to be business as usual (with a lot of inconvenience to comply).
- icebraining 8y agoBut why would most users consent?
- manigandham 8y agoBecause they want access to the services and content.
- icebraining 8y agoFrom the article: "The GDPR prohibits such forced consent and any form of bundling a service with the requirement to consent (see Article 7(4) GDPR). Consequently access to services can no longer depend on whether a user gives consent to the use of data."
- manigandham 8y agoLaws can't demand a service be offered without consideration unless the government intends to socialize or pay for it. This is unlikely to hold up beyond allowing complaints by people feeling entitled enough to do so, although I'm sure FB and the rest will happily roll out subscription plans if necessary.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoLawmakers have no obligation to preserve flawed business models.
- manigandham 8y agoOk, but that has nothing to do with what I said. You can't legislate that online services be provided any more than you can legislate that Apple provide iPhones for everyone. The government can offer subsidies or refunds or some other consideration, but there must be something in return.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoFacebook is perfectly allowed to stop providing services, but they cannot make use of their service contingent on tracking and personalized ads.