3 ms·

>They would gladly click on a "sell my data" over a "pay money" button any day of the week. You don't know that because no one is given a clear choice like you

>They would gladly click on a "sell my data" over a "pay money" button any day of the week. You don't know that because no one is given a clear choice like you present (and even saying "data" is opaque to joe average user). And this is what regulations like EU's and CA's should be enforcing. Imagine if the choice was: We have this data about you (a comprehensive list of all the fruits of our creepy stalking: a,b,c,d, etc...), if you let us violate your privacy in a myriad of ways, we will let you have this little trinket for free. Otherwise, it will cost you x. How many people would select privacy violation? >Most people don't expect to get things for free in the real world, why should the internet be any different? Why does everyone (myself included) always look for free stuff on the internet? Most of the internet is communication in some form or another. I get a lot of communication for free in the real world. My question is: why does everyone assume that the purpose of the internet is their platform to get rich selling trinkets to clueless natives? Maybe some things are better off run as a non-profit?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jefftk 3y ago
> this is what regulations like EU's and CA's should be enforcing. Imagine if the choice was: We have this data about you (a comprehensive list of all the fruits of our creepy stalking: a,b,c,d, etc...), if you let us violate your privacy in a myriad of ways, we will let you have this little trinket for free. Otherwise, it will cost you x. How many people would select privacy violation? Unfortunately under the GDPR we are not going to find out how many people would choose this option. It isn't legal, in the EU, to refuse someone access if they say no to your data collection.
- Chatting 3y ago
  It is legal[1] to require users to agree to data collection or pay a subscription. Some news sites have already begun to implement this scheme. [1] At least according to some countries' DPAs, and as long as the price is "fair". https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/24487-cookie-walls-gdpr https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/24487-cookie-walls-gdpr
  - flangola7 3y ago
    That is a monetization service. A short internet search quickly reveals that data-or-paywall is a bad idea at best, and explicitly illegal per multiple nations. It only requires one user from one of those states to file a report.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > It is legal[1] to require users to agree to data collection or pay a subscription. Some news sites have already begun to implement this scheme. From your link, almost at the top: "The cookie wall is a mechanism where the user has only one option to access the website: accept the processing of the cookies. The cookie wall is prohibited.". So no, requiring users to agree to data collection, per your article, is prohibited.
    - Chatting 3y ago
      You have to read the whole article though, not just stop at the first paragraph. The article makes a distinction between cookie wall (accept or no access) and paywall[1] (accept or pay). The former is prohibited, the latter has been okay'd by several national DPAs. > The Austrian, French and Danish DPAs have already indicated that the paywall system is a valid solution as long as the subscription to the site has a modest and fair cost so that it does not constrain the user’s free choice. > The Spanish DPA indirectly shared its position implying that cookie walls can be used as long as the user has been clearly informed of the two available options for accessing the service: 1. accepting the use of cookies; or 2. another alternative, “not necessarily free of charge“, that doesn’t require giving consent to cookies. [1] Not to be confused with the "hard" paywall (pay or no access) we see on some publications. They've just called it like that for lack of a better term.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I'm fine with GDPR-compliant sites not giving that choice. Especially because I bet so many of those sites would set X to be much higher than the value of the data.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jefftk 3y ago

> this is what regulations like EU's and CA's should be enforcing. Imagine if the choice was: We have this data about you (a comprehensive list of all the fruits of our creepy stalking: a,b,c,d, etc...), if you let us violate your privacy in a myriad of ways, we will let you have this little trinket for free. Otherwise, it will cost you x. How many people would select privacy violation? Unfortunately under the GDPR we are not going to find out how many people would choose this option. It isn't legal, in the EU, to refuse someone access if they say no to your data collection.

Chatting 3y ago
It is legal[1] to require users to agree to data collection or pay a subscription. Some news sites have already begun to implement this scheme. [1] At least according to some countries' DPAs, and as long as the price is "fair". https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/24487-cookie-walls-gdpr https://www.iubenda.com/en/help/24487-cookie-walls-gdpr
- flangola7 3y ago
  That is a monetization service. A short internet search quickly reveals that data-or-paywall is a bad idea at best, and explicitly illegal per multiple nations. It only requires one user from one of those states to file a report.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > It is legal[1] to require users to agree to data collection or pay a subscription. Some news sites have already begun to implement this scheme. From your link, almost at the top: "The cookie wall is a mechanism where the user has only one option to access the website: accept the processing of the cookies. The cookie wall is prohibited.". So no, requiring users to agree to data collection, per your article, is prohibited.
  - Chatting 3y ago
    You have to read the whole article though, not just stop at the first paragraph. The article makes a distinction between cookie wall (accept or no access) and paywall[1] (accept or pay). The former is prohibited, the latter has been okay'd by several national DPAs. > The Austrian, French and Danish DPAs have already indicated that the paywall system is a valid solution as long as the subscription to the site has a modest and fair cost so that it does not constrain the user’s free choice. > The Spanish DPA indirectly shared its position implying that cookie walls can be used as long as the user has been clearly informed of the two available options for accessing the service: 1. accepting the use of cookies; or 2. another alternative, “not necessarily free of charge“, that doesn’t require giving consent to cookies. [1] Not to be confused with the "hard" paywall (pay or no access) we see on some publications. They've just called it like that for lack of a better term.
Dylan16807 3y ago
I'm fine with GDPR-compliant sites not giving that choice. Especially because I bet so many of those sites would set X to be much higher than the value of the data.