4 ms·

Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, if you don't want to pay or watch ads press here to delete your ac

Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, if you don't want to pay or watch ads press here to delete your account. Then, to the people that stay, yes or no to targeted ads. This won't kill Instagram and Facebook but will kill WhatsApp unless it's paid for by the business accounts and the ads on the other platforms.

Kelteseth 3y ago
This is what most German sites like spiegel.de or heise.de do: "Continue reading with ads Visit SPIEGEL.de as you normally would with the advertising and the usual tracking. (You can revoke your consent at any time.) or Read ad-free No sharing of your data with advertisers. Use us for a fee without any ad tracking and practically free of advertising."
- Euphorbium 3y ago
  Advertisers only want to advertise to paying customers, because free tier does not buy anything.
  - pmontra 3y ago
    Advertisers show ads to the large free tier of Facebook and Google. Furthermore everybody buy something.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Furthermore everybody buy something Is practically unavoidable in a system like ours; but also not important in this context as there's an implicit "because it was advertised". One of the ways I'm weird: it's like I have a homunculus of the Marie Kondo meme before I'd even heard of her, telling me I don't really want to buy $thing, or even receive one as a gift, because it won't spark joy. As a result, my total expenses included rent, food, commuting, utilities, fun… literally everything, all comes to less than €1000/month on average.
      - meghan_rain 3y ago
        [flagged]
        Timon3 3y ago
        Maybe save the indignation for when someone actually advocates for what you're describing? GP didn't say anything in that regard. Can you not handle any small criticism of our current system?
        Qwertious 3y ago
        Well, you see there are two options: the current system, or Stalinism. These are literally the only possible configurations for society.
        ben_w 3y ago
        You're disgusted by the result of your own imagination about what I didn't actually write.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    That only matters if a significant portion of the userbase actually pays the fee. If only 0.01% of users pay the fee, then advertisers will be totally fine 'only' advertising to the poorest 99.99% of the population. See how people still pay for youtube ads despite there being a premium service to skip them.
- pmontra 3y ago
  Some Italian news sites instead are doing accept tracking and read for free or refuse tracking and subscribe.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Most French press media do almost the same, but they still share data with third party when you pay >_<: see Le Monde's privacy policy[1] > 4. POUR QUELLES FINALITÉS UTILISONS-NOUS VOS DONNÉES ? > 4.3. Opérations liées à des partenariats commerciaux > Partage, échange ou location de fichiers avec des partenaires commerciaux dans le respect de la réglementation en vigueur et des exigences de sécurité ; [1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/confidentialite/ https://www.lemonde.fr/confidentialite/
- jacooper 3y ago
  This isnt clearly legal under the GDPR https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end
  - deschutes 3y ago
    One wonders if European lawmakers have any idea what a business is.
    - jacooper 3y ago
      One wonders if businesses know what digital privacy is.
pgeorgi 3y ago
> it's paid for by [...] the ads on the other platforms Antitrust proceedings coming in 3, 2, 1...
- tpxl 3y ago
  As if. Google basically prevented competition in the maps space (funding it with ads) then increased the prices by up to 100 times, and nothing happened.
littlestymaar 3y ago
> Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, Ads and targeted ads based on all the data we have on your life are two very different things, claiming that targeted ads are the only option is just bad faith.
- pxeger1 3y ago
  The assumption is that Facebook doesn't want to allow non-targeted ads as they don't make enough money. If they could force you to pay them or accept the target ads, (either of which would make them more money than non-targeted ads) , then they probably would.
  - hfkwer 3y ago
    If their business model depends on breaking the law, maybe it's not a viable one.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      I don't think their business model does depend on breaking the law. They could stop operating in the EU and still make a profit, IIRC.
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        Any social media platform that stops operating in the EU is leaving a void for competitors to take over the EU market. Once said competitor takes over the EU market, they would be large enough to pose a serious threat to Facebook in other markets.
    - achenet 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure drug cartels, and more generally organized criminal groups, are pretty viable financially, at least short term. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel
rlpb 3y ago
Ads are fine. Collecting personal data to serve them without consent is not. The GDPR makes it illegal for them to refuse service because you refuse that consent. It effectively outlaws that business model. Getting served ads without personal data collection as a business model is fine however. Consent is not required for that and so a business model based on that is fine. The ads would be less effective but when done across the board doesn't won't make the model less competitive.
troupo 3y ago
You don't need pervasive and invasive tracking to display ads. As simple as that. Literally nothing in GDPR prevents you from showing ads.
- Puts 3y ago
  Underrated comment. In the old days, car magazines had ads for cars, fishing magazines had ads for fishing gear, food magazines had ads for cooking ware and so on. You can actually have ads tailored after the content of the page you are looking at. You don't have to stalk and track users.
  - MandieD 3y ago
    This is why I have no qualms about using an ad blocker on YouTube, but won't use SponsorBlock - if the video creator gets a direct sponsor, I'm happy for them, and if it's a crappy sponsor or a really annoying spot, I can use that as input for how much I trust whatever else the video creator is going to say or whether I will continue to watch their videos.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    > You can actually have ads tailored after the content of the page you are looking at. You don't have to stalk and track users. Alas, a lot of the stalking and tracking are measurements. I wrote our own small adserver. We have first party ads, either our own or with smaller partners like stores, that are nothing but HTML, CSS, and images. Fully contextual, no consent required (and so far ad-blocker safe as we are too small). But everything with the bigger fish (e.g. Sony) goes through agencies who want full control, who clicks, who sees it, etc. The ads are still fully contextutal, but the measurements require all kinds of consent. So we actually hand the TCF string (some kind of shady adtech consent declaration) that our consent tool generates to that adserver because now that decides what they can do… Generally, if someone uses an adblocker or rejects Google Ads (pretty much a canary option as I can’t be arsed to handle the ins and outs of the tcf string), we default to first-party only.
flangola7 3y ago
> Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, if you don't want to pay or watch ads press here to delete your account. Then, to the people that stay, yes or no to targeted ads. Ads or no ads is beside the point, GDPR doesn't address advertising, only data privacy. Facebook is allowed to run non targeted ads at any time. If you're asking if they can offer to invade your privacy or pay a fee, no that would not be legal. User consent must be given freely, with no change in level of received service if they say no to tracking.
dspillett 3y ago
Yes. And no. It isn't quite that simple. The problem is that adverts and stalking are intimately linked ATM. I block companies trying to follow me around my day-today life, I don't block adverts directly but inadvertently because of that link between the two. GDPR and similar regulations are not about advertising, but privacy. They are usually written to disallow excluding users who don't agree to the stalking part – so “allow ads or pay by other means or go away” is fine but “allow stalking or pay by other means or go away” is not, and the way the ad-tech industry currently is the two can not (easily) be separated.

Kelteseth 3y ago

This is what most German sites like spiegel.de or heise.de do: "Continue reading with ads Visit SPIEGEL.de as you normally would with the advertising and the usual tracking. (You can revoke your consent at any time.) or Read ad-free No sharing of your data with advertisers. Use us for a fee without any ad tracking and practically free of advertising."

Euphorbium 3y ago
Advertisers only want to advertise to paying customers, because free tier does not buy anything.
- pmontra 3y ago
  Advertisers show ads to the large free tier of Facebook and Google. Furthermore everybody buy something.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Furthermore everybody buy something Is practically unavoidable in a system like ours; but also not important in this context as there's an implicit "because it was advertised". One of the ways I'm weird: it's like I have a homunculus of the Marie Kondo meme before I'd even heard of her, telling me I don't really want to buy $thing, or even receive one as a gift, because it won't spark joy. As a result, my total expenses included rent, food, commuting, utilities, fun… literally everything, all comes to less than €1000/month on average.
    - meghan_rain 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Maybe save the indignation for when someone actually advocates for what you're describing? GP didn't say anything in that regard. Can you not handle any small criticism of our current system?
        Qwertious 3y ago
        Well, you see there are two options: the current system, or Stalinism. These are literally the only possible configurations for society.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        You're disgusted by the result of your own imagination about what I didn't actually write.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  That only matters if a significant portion of the userbase actually pays the fee. If only 0.01% of users pay the fee, then advertisers will be totally fine 'only' advertising to the poorest 99.99% of the population. See how people still pay for youtube ads despite there being a premium service to skip them.
pmontra 3y ago
Some Italian news sites instead are doing accept tracking and read for free or refuse tracking and subscribe.
littlestymaar 3y ago
Most French press media do almost the same, but they still share data with third party when you pay >_<: see Le Monde's privacy policy[1] > 4. POUR QUELLES FINALITÉS UTILISONS-NOUS VOS DONNÉES ? > 4.3. Opérations liées à des partenariats commerciaux > Partage, échange ou location de fichiers avec des partenaires commerciaux dans le respect de la réglementation en vigueur et des exigences de sécurité ; [1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/confidentialite/ https://www.lemonde.fr/confidentialite/
jacooper 3y ago
This isnt clearly legal under the GDPR https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end
- deschutes 3y ago
  One wonders if European lawmakers have any idea what a business is.
  - jacooper 3y ago
    One wonders if businesses know what digital privacy is.

pgeorgi 3y ago

> it's paid for by [...] the ads on the other platforms Antitrust proceedings coming in 3, 2, 1...

tpxl 3y ago
As if. Google basically prevented competition in the maps space (funding it with ads) then increased the prices by up to 100 times, and nothing happened.

littlestymaar 3y ago

> Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, Ads and targeted ads based on all the data we have on your life are two very different things, claiming that targeted ads are the only option is just bad faith.

pxeger1 3y ago
The assumption is that Facebook doesn't want to allow non-targeted ads as they don't make enough money. If they could force you to pay them or accept the target ads, (either of which would make them more money than non-targeted ads) , then they probably would.
- hfkwer 3y ago
  If their business model depends on breaking the law, maybe it's not a viable one.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    I don't think their business model does depend on breaking the law. They could stop operating in the EU and still make a profit, IIRC.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      Any social media platform that stops operating in the EU is leaving a void for competitors to take over the EU market. Once said competitor takes over the EU market, they would be large enough to pose a serious threat to Facebook in other markets.
  - achenet 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure drug cartels, and more generally organized criminal groups, are pretty viable financially, at least short term. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel

rlpb 3y ago

Ads are fine. Collecting personal data to serve them without consent is not. The GDPR makes it illegal for them to refuse service because you refuse that consent. It effectively outlaws that business model. Getting served ads without personal data collection as a business model is fine however. Consent is not required for that and so a business model based on that is fine. The ads would be less effective but when done across the board doesn't won't make the model less competitive.

troupo 3y ago

You don't need pervasive and invasive tracking to display ads. As simple as that. Literally nothing in GDPR prevents you from showing ads.

Puts 3y ago
Underrated comment. In the old days, car magazines had ads for cars, fishing magazines had ads for fishing gear, food magazines had ads for cooking ware and so on. You can actually have ads tailored after the content of the page you are looking at. You don't have to stalk and track users.
- MandieD 3y ago
  This is why I have no qualms about using an ad blocker on YouTube, but won't use SponsorBlock - if the video creator gets a direct sponsor, I'm happy for them, and if it's a crappy sponsor or a really annoying spot, I can use that as input for how much I trust whatever else the video creator is going to say or whether I will continue to watch their videos.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  > You can actually have ads tailored after the content of the page you are looking at. You don't have to stalk and track users. Alas, a lot of the stalking and tracking are measurements. I wrote our own small adserver. We have first party ads, either our own or with smaller partners like stores, that are nothing but HTML, CSS, and images. Fully contextual, no consent required (and so far ad-blocker safe as we are too small). But everything with the bigger fish (e.g. Sony) goes through agencies who want full control, who clicks, who sees it, etc. The ads are still fully contextutal, but the measurements require all kinds of consent. So we actually hand the TCF string (some kind of shady adtech consent declaration) that our consent tool generates to that adserver because now that decides what they can do… Generally, if someone uses an adblocker or rejects Google Ads (pretty much a canary option as I can’t be arsed to handle the ins and outs of the tcf string), we default to first-party only.

flangola7 3y ago

> Could FB simply say: this service costs money to run, either you pay for it or you watch ads, if you don't want to pay or watch ads press here to delete your account. Then, to the people that stay, yes or no to targeted ads. Ads or no ads is beside the point, GDPR doesn't address advertising, only data privacy. Facebook is allowed to run non targeted ads at any time. If you're asking if they can offer to invade your privacy or pay a fee, no that would not be legal. User consent must be given freely, with no change in level of received service if they say no to tracking.

dspillett 3y ago

Yes. And no. It isn't quite that simple. The problem is that adverts and stalking are intimately linked ATM. I block companies trying to follow me around my day-today life, I don't block adverts directly but inadvertently because of that link between the two. GDPR and similar regulations are not about advertising, but privacy. They are usually written to disallow excluding users who don't agree to the stalking part – so “allow ads or pay by other means or go away” is fine but “allow stalking or pay by other means or go away” is not, and the way the ad-tech industry currently is the two can not (easily) be separated.