3 ms·

Not true. Every business has freedom to choose its customers. Nobody can force you to service them for free, and nobody can force you to serve your website with

by 9dev 3y ago

Not true. Every business has freedom to choose its customers. Nobody can force you to service them for free, and nobody can force you to serve your website without tracking enabled if that drives your revenue. However, you’ll have to live with the consequences. Maybe it’s time to reduce reliance on tracking after all?

markus92 3y ago
GDPR does not allow for negative consequences for refusing consent - it must be freely given and if there is a negative consequence it is not considered to be given freely.
kuschku 3y ago
There are many protected categories. You cannot discriminate based on race, for example. A major point of GDPR is that it basically made "do you agree to tracking? yes/no" a protected category as well. Specifically, it requires freely given consent to allow tracking. Freely given consent is defined by the GDPR as consent that was given without any discrimination, rejection of service, or extortion in any way influencing your choice. So no, you absolutely cannot discriminate based on whether users agreed to tracking or not.
hnbad 3y ago
Yes true. If the service can be provided without collecting and processing certain data you can not coerce the user to "consent" to you doing so in order to access your service. E.g. the good old growth hack of collecting newsletter subscriptions by email-gating a "free e-book" behind a newsletter signup form. There does seem to be a loophole for enforcing tracking ads as "legitimate interest" (i.e. not seeking consent) if you also offer a paid subscription without them, which is what a lot of German news sites seem to have shifted to. There was a recent court case in Germany however because a company got sued for not providing an option to not consent to everything that wasn't related to ads (e.g. analytics, third-party widgets and so on) and most sites seem to now provide granular controls even when they force ads if you don't want to pay. Note that they still have to lazy load the ads after consent is given in order to be compliant. I'm not sure if this way of forcing ads is compliant throughout the EU as it feels more of a gray area given that the site usually sends the full article and then gates it behind a consent modal on the client, i.e. there's no technical requirement to show the ads, just a sustainability one.
wkat4242 3y ago
> Not true. Every business has freedom to choose its customers. In America yes. In Europe no, you can't project US law here. For example the "We don't bake cakes for gay couples" is absolutely not ok here either.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  "We don't bake cakes for gay couples" is also not ok in the US; the court ruled against the baker
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    You are incorrect, that was turned over on appeal. But as you will see in "Subsequent Events," legality does depend on the specific cake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
    - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
      Thank you for the correction! Would I still be right to assert that it is illegal to refuse to bake a cake for gay customers, though? The ruling seems to be about how Colorado mistreated the case, and agrees that freedom of religion can be restricted by generally applicable law. I'm not seeing them ruling one cake is okay and another is not
LelouBil 3y ago
With the GDPR, you can't take tracking as payment for your service. Ads yes, but tracking no.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  From the text, that was the intent. It does seem as if that is being tested now e.g. https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-move-pay-your-rights-approach https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-move-pay-your-rig...

by 9dev 3y ago

markus92 3y ago

GDPR does not allow for negative consequences for refusing consent - it must be freely given and if there is a negative consequence it is not considered to be given freely.

kuschku 3y ago

There are many protected categories. You cannot discriminate based on race, for example. A major point of GDPR is that it basically made "do you agree to tracking? yes/no" a protected category as well. Specifically, it requires freely given consent to allow tracking. Freely given consent is defined by the GDPR as consent that was given without any discrimination, rejection of service, or extortion in any way influencing your choice. So no, you absolutely cannot discriminate based on whether users agreed to tracking or not.

hnbad 3y ago

Yes true. If the service can be provided without collecting and processing certain data you can not coerce the user to "consent" to you doing so in order to access your service. E.g. the good old growth hack of collecting newsletter subscriptions by email-gating a "free e-book" behind a newsletter signup form. There does seem to be a loophole for enforcing tracking ads as "legitimate interest" (i.e. not seeking consent) if you also offer a paid subscription without them, which is what a lot of German news sites seem to have shifted to. There was a recent court case in Germany however because a company got sued for not providing an option to not consent to everything that wasn't related to ads (e.g. analytics, third-party widgets and so on) and most sites seem to now provide granular controls even when they force ads if you don't want to pay. Note that they still have to lazy load the ads after consent is given in order to be compliant. I'm not sure if this way of forcing ads is compliant throughout the EU as it feels more of a gray area given that the site usually sends the full article and then gates it behind a consent modal on the client, i.e. there's no technical requirement to show the ads, just a sustainability one.

wkat4242 3y ago

> Not true. Every business has freedom to choose its customers. In America yes. In Europe no, you can't project US law here. For example the "We don't bake cakes for gay couples" is absolutely not ok here either.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
"We don't bake cakes for gay couples" is also not ok in the US; the court ruled against the baker
- plagiarist 3y ago
  You are incorrect, that was turned over on appeal. But as you will see in "Subsequent Events," legality does depend on the specific cake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    Thank you for the correction! Would I still be right to assert that it is illegal to refuse to bake a cake for gay customers, though? The ruling seems to be about how Colorado mistreated the case, and agrees that freedom of religion can be restricted by generally applicable law. I'm not seeing them ruling one cake is okay and another is not

LelouBil 3y ago

With the GDPR, you can't take tracking as payment for your service. Ads yes, but tracking no.

kybernetikos 3y ago
From the text, that was the intent. It does seem as if that is being tested now e.g. https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-move-pay-your-rights-approach https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-move-pay-your-rig...