13 ms·

I meant terrified of doing shady stuff (as I was responding to the assertion that it didn't stop doing shady stuff), not terrified in general. Running a websit

I meant terrified of doing shady stuff (as I was responding to the assertion that it didn't stop doing shady stuff), not terrified in general. Running a website without a popup is easy. Just stop any processing that is not necessary for you to provide the service. "But I want to track what users are doing!" - Well, then you have to show them a popup about that. The GDPR holds that data protection is a fundamental right. Consequently, the user's interests generally trump a website owner's interest.

Aerroon 6y ago
>"But I want to track what users are doing!" - Well, then you have to show them a popup about that. I think most website owners don't care about that, but they do care about earning money to actually run the website. >The GDPR holds that data protection is a fundamental right. The GDPR says that if the user asks to use your service then you have to offer them the service regardless whether they're willing to pay for it or not. You cannot not show content to users who refuse to share the data. Effectively, everyone else has to subsidize them. And that's why you have a labyrinth of pop ups - GDPR breaks the normal monetization methods of the web. Suddenly they're surprised that this led to dark patterns.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ckastner 6y ago
  > I think most website owners don't care about that, but they do care about earning money to actually run the website. Again -- the GDPR recognizes the right to data as a a fundamental right, and thus the ability to earn money with a website comes second to user's rights. Argumenting against this is a bit like Big Tobacco complaining that they're not allowed to sell cigarettes to children. > The GDPR says that if the user asks to use your service then you have to offer them the service regardless whether they're willing to pay for it or not. You cannot not show content to users who refuse to share the data. Effectively, everyone else has to subsidize them. Sure you can. All you have to do is offer two models: (a) a model where the user pays for the service, and (b) a model were the user receives the service in exchange for a agreeing to tracking etc.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    I'm not sure why you're downvoted, but (b) isn't allowed under GDPR. Consent has to be given freely. It means that you can't block content if the user is unwilling to have their information shared.
    - ckastner 6y ago
      (b) is allowed. This has been confirmed by the Austrian Data Protection Agency. (I haven't checked other DPAs, but they coordinate with each other.) In the case above, a newspaper offered access to paywalled content for a small monthly subscription fee, and readers would consume it with zero ads, zero tracking. Alternatively, they offered access with no monetary cost, but instead in exchange for tracking. The DPA ruled this as fair because readers had a choice, and because the paid model was reasonable for a newspaper subscription (€6/month). The key here is that starting with alternative (a) makes it a paywalled service, which is clearly legal (think Netflix). Also offering (b) just offers another mode of payment. You wrote earlier: "GDPR breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Well, smoking regulation broke (some of the) monetization methods of Big Tobacco. Arguing against the GDPR here is besides the point. The GDPR is not an end, it is a means. The end is recognition of right to data as a fundamental right. Re-writing your statement in light of this, the point becomes "Data as a fundamental right breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Opinions will differ here.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  I think you know charging for services is allowed. You say normal. Others say pernicious.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    Sure, but then your users will flock to an alternative that doesn't charge them money. Maybe the alternative is propped up by government funding or funding by some giant corporation or maybe they're based outside of GDPR jurisdiction or maybe they just don't care about the laws. Whatever it is, you're getting outcompeted. And if every alternative charges money, then that means you're shutting out a large portion of people. For example, I can't pay for anything online right now. It doesn't matter whether it costs $5 or just a single cent - I have no way to pay. It'll be sorted eventually, but even then paying for anything online for me will be a 5-10 minute process. Not exactly something I'm willing to do for almost anything. And a lot of people in the world are in a similar position - credit cards aren't as accessible in most of the world compared to the US. If services like paypal don't accept bank transfers from your country, then they don't help either.

Aerroon 6y ago

>"But I want to track what users are doing!" - Well, then you have to show them a popup about that. I think most website owners don't care about that, but they do care about earning money to actually run the website. >The GDPR holds that data protection is a fundamental right. The GDPR says that if the user asks to use your service then you have to offer them the service regardless whether they're willing to pay for it or not. You cannot not show content to users who refuse to share the data. Effectively, everyone else has to subsidize them. And that's why you have a labyrinth of pop ups - GDPR breaks the normal monetization methods of the web. Suddenly they're surprised that this led to dark patterns.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ckastner 6y ago
> I think most website owners don't care about that, but they do care about earning money to actually run the website. Again -- the GDPR recognizes the right to data as a a fundamental right, and thus the ability to earn money with a website comes second to user's rights. Argumenting against this is a bit like Big Tobacco complaining that they're not allowed to sell cigarettes to children. > The GDPR says that if the user asks to use your service then you have to offer them the service regardless whether they're willing to pay for it or not. You cannot not show content to users who refuse to share the data. Effectively, everyone else has to subsidize them. Sure you can. All you have to do is offer two models: (a) a model where the user pays for the service, and (b) a model were the user receives the service in exchange for a agreeing to tracking etc.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you're downvoted, but (b) isn't allowed under GDPR. Consent has to be given freely. It means that you can't block content if the user is unwilling to have their information shared.
  - ckastner 6y ago
    (b) is allowed. This has been confirmed by the Austrian Data Protection Agency. (I haven't checked other DPAs, but they coordinate with each other.) In the case above, a newspaper offered access to paywalled content for a small monthly subscription fee, and readers would consume it with zero ads, zero tracking. Alternatively, they offered access with no monetary cost, but instead in exchange for tracking. The DPA ruled this as fair because readers had a choice, and because the paid model was reasonable for a newspaper subscription (€6/month). The key here is that starting with alternative (a) makes it a paywalled service, which is clearly legal (think Netflix). Also offering (b) just offers another mode of payment. You wrote earlier: "GDPR breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Well, smoking regulation broke (some of the) monetization methods of Big Tobacco. Arguing against the GDPR here is besides the point. The GDPR is not an end, it is a means. The end is recognition of right to data as a fundamental right. Re-writing your statement in light of this, the point becomes "Data as a fundamental right breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Opinions will differ here.
pseudalopex 6y ago
I think you know charging for services is allowed. You say normal. Others say pernicious.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  Sure, but then your users will flock to an alternative that doesn't charge them money. Maybe the alternative is propped up by government funding or funding by some giant corporation or maybe they're based outside of GDPR jurisdiction or maybe they just don't care about the laws. Whatever it is, you're getting outcompeted. And if every alternative charges money, then that means you're shutting out a large portion of people. For example, I can't pay for anything online right now. It doesn't matter whether it costs $5 or just a single cent - I have no way to pay. It'll be sorted eventually, but even then paying for anything online for me will be a 5-10 minute process. Not exactly something I'm willing to do for almost anything. And a lot of people in the world are in a similar position - credit cards aren't as accessible in most of the world compared to the US. If services like paypal don't accept bank transfers from your country, then they don't help either.