17 ms·
Does someone know why it is legal that in some countries websites are allowed to offer layers that offer a paid version and a tracking enabled version (very pop
by arendtio 3y ago
Does someone know why it is legal that in some countries websites are allowed to offer layers that offer a paid version and a tracking enabled version (very popular among newspapers)?
As far as I understand the GDPR, there should be no downside to rejecting the tracking technologies. And Websites relying on advertising, could do so with unpersonalized ads (granted with very different metrics).
Nevertheless, to me it feels, like these paid vs tracked offers are not what the authors of the GDPR intended.
- tpxl 3y agoYou mustn't reject service based on refusal of non-legitimate-reason data processing consent. Allowing paying to not have ads is orthogonal to the service being provided - in both cases the user gets the news, it's just flanked by ads in one case.
- arendtio 3y agoWell, I don't have a problem with the paid version. What I have have a problem with, is the refusal of service if I don't consent to being tracked. So if there would be three versions, like 'personalized ads with tracking', 'tracking-free/unpersonalized ads' and 'paid ad-free', that would be fine with me. What I don't understand, is that it is okay to refuse the service if you don't consent for the ad-supported tracking version. I mean, not giving your consent, means you have to pay if you want to use the service. Doesn't feel like you have a free choice (pun intended).
- layer8 3y agoI believe it’s for the same reason that a pay-only service is legal.
- tpxl 3y agoSorry, I misread your comment. It's not OK to refuse service if you refuse tracking. Paid service or ads without tracking is OK. Paid service with no free alternative is OK - you didn't refuse service based on refusing tracking, you refused it based on non-payment. Paid service or tracking is not OK.