3 ms·

So this is basically in response to EU regulations. Will they accept this solution from Meta as being within the sprit of the law? They are basically charging

So this is basically in response to EU regulations. Will they accept this solution from Meta as being within the sprit of the law? They are basically charging an exorbitant amount to get a legally compatible experience, but now Meta will say "we offer people the chance to use the site untracked, but they've all chosen to let us collect their data to use the site for free". Will be interesting to see how the EU responds to this.

makomk 3y ago
There are already major EU-based news sites that make people choose between paying a monthly subscription and allowing their data to be used for ad targetting. It's hard to see how the EU could get Meta for this without either hurting those companies or abandoning the pretense that this is actually based on the rule of law and not just arbitrarily punishing non-EU companies.
- smarx007 3y ago
  https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
  - overstay8930 3y ago
    Honestly how does the EU expect companies to make money? Are websites supposed to be a charity? I guess it's no surprise they have 0 competitive tech companies if these are the smooth brain laws they have to operate under.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Companies can advertise all they want, just not collect personal information without their consent. An over 700 billion dollar company with 30% or so profit margin is about as far from charity you can get.
      - jsvlnlvee 3y ago
        > Companies can advertise all they want, just not collect personal information without their consent. Honest question, what's an acceptable way to get consent? Companies need the user to accept their terms before using their services but I presume that's not sufficient/acceptable way since its arguably too long/complicated for a user etc. App specific permissions on your phone can be restricted e.g. turn off location data access for an app, but users generally create accounts and provide more detailed information, so that's likely not sufficient? A prompt on every bit of data collected seems like a bad user experience e.g. notifying the user on every http request that the ip is collected/sent to the server which can provide their rough geo location. What's an acceptable way to do this?
        jampekka 3y ago
        The GDPR way (in spirit) is quite good IMHO. The user needs to know at least roughly who, how and why their personal information is used. If it's obviously needed to provide the service the user wants, no explicit consent is usually needed. E.g. asking for an address without explicit consent is fine if you are sending them a package they have ordered. Asking for the address to sell it to someone sending mail ads is not. It's not about the data itself, it's about how it's used. Of course very few actually want their information to be used like e.g. ad companies use it, so the "consent" is tricked with dark patterns. And this trickery (and lack of enforcement) makes the law look bad.
        Yujf 3y ago
        You show a small banner on the page, with 3 options: accept, reject optional and configure. Configure explains each thing and lets the user opt in to specific things. It is quite simple really. And if you only track necessary information, you do not need a banner at all
np_tedious 3y ago
This is not at all exorbitant. Less than $1 per hour for many regular social media users
- everforward 3y ago
  > Less than $1 per hour for many regular social media users Paying $1 per hour solely to remove ads is pretty high. Netflix, Hulu, et al are offering content they created for about $1 per hour. A lot of video games are less than $1 per hour to get content to enjoy. It's not that the absolute price is too high, it's that the goods being offered are terrible and not worth more than a nominal price.
  - np_tedious 3y ago
    I'm not saying I'd do it, but it's certainly not exorbitant. Streaming subscriptions is a great comparison point. For many people, Facebook and Instagram together occupy a bigger role in their lives than Netflix does. This subscription cost is less than Netflix"s

makomk 3y ago

There are already major EU-based news sites that make people choose between paying a monthly subscription and allowing their data to be used for ad targetting. It's hard to see how the EU could get Meta for this without either hurting those companies or abandoning the pretense that this is actually based on the rule of law and not just arbitrarily punishing non-EU companies.

smarx007 3y ago
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
- overstay8930 3y ago
  Honestly how does the EU expect companies to make money? Are websites supposed to be a charity? I guess it's no surprise they have 0 competitive tech companies if these are the smooth brain laws they have to operate under.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    Companies can advertise all they want, just not collect personal information without their consent. An over 700 billion dollar company with 30% or so profit margin is about as far from charity you can get.
    - jsvlnlvee 3y ago
      > Companies can advertise all they want, just not collect personal information without their consent. Honest question, what's an acceptable way to get consent? Companies need the user to accept their terms before using their services but I presume that's not sufficient/acceptable way since its arguably too long/complicated for a user etc. App specific permissions on your phone can be restricted e.g. turn off location data access for an app, but users generally create accounts and provide more detailed information, so that's likely not sufficient? A prompt on every bit of data collected seems like a bad user experience e.g. notifying the user on every http request that the ip is collected/sent to the server which can provide their rough geo location. What's an acceptable way to do this?
      - jampekka 3y ago
        The GDPR way (in spirit) is quite good IMHO. The user needs to know at least roughly who, how and why their personal information is used. If it's obviously needed to provide the service the user wants, no explicit consent is usually needed. E.g. asking for an address without explicit consent is fine if you are sending them a package they have ordered. Asking for the address to sell it to someone sending mail ads is not. It's not about the data itself, it's about how it's used. Of course very few actually want their information to be used like e.g. ad companies use it, so the "consent" is tricked with dark patterns. And this trickery (and lack of enforcement) makes the law look bad.
      - Yujf 3y ago
        You show a small banner on the page, with 3 options: accept, reject optional and configure. Configure explains each thing and lets the user opt in to specific things. It is quite simple really. And if you only track necessary information, you do not need a banner at all

np_tedious 3y ago

This is not at all exorbitant. Less than $1 per hour for many regular social media users

everforward 3y ago
> Less than $1 per hour for many regular social media users Paying $1 per hour solely to remove ads is pretty high. Netflix, Hulu, et al are offering content they created for about $1 per hour. A lot of video games are less than $1 per hour to get content to enjoy. It's not that the absolute price is too high, it's that the goods being offered are terrible and not worth more than a nominal price.
- np_tedious 3y ago
  I'm not saying I'd do it, but it's certainly not exorbitant. Streaming subscriptions is a great comparison point. For many people, Facebook and Instagram together occupy a bigger role in their lives than Netflix does. This subscription cost is less than Netflix"s