3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.