5 ms·

What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling yo

What you are asking for is the ability to sell your right to privacy. Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, eg. selling your vote or selling yourself into slavery or accepting licenses in conflict with rights granted by local consumer laws. Some things we don't want assigned a value that can be traded. The EU has decided that the right to privacy includes not being tracked on the Internet, and any 'you can only use this if you give up your right or pay money' is not going to be allowed, because it ends up destroying that right for many.

pests 3y ago
But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tagyro 3y ago
  I don't agree - you can't just stop using it. Given the size of facebook (or google, amazon, microsoft, apple etc), they are ingrained in our (tech) life in such a way that one has to invest a - not negligible - amount of work to stop using them. To sum it up: companies want to have "power", but without having "responsibility".
  - graphe 3y ago
    You CAN stop using them. Do you WANT to? Are you unable to? Social media addiction isn't a right, and just because you have a share to Facebook or Twitter integration doesn't mean you have to use either.
  - OhNoNotAgain_99 3y ago
    [dead]
  - dadadatamen 3y ago
    You can. It's almost quite literally an effort of 30 - 60 min per day or week or month, depending on how skilled you are at keeping things convenient, meaning self-hosting services and maintaining them.
    - theonlybutlet 3y ago
      And say getting a job, when everything is through LinkedIn?
      - dadadatamen 3y ago
        You can get the contact details of the hiring manager on the companies website or call their front desk or ask in an E-Mail to info@xyz or support@xyz or even by asking around. and there are various ways to prove your value that are not based on networks
        theonlybutlet 3y ago
        You won't know unless you saw the listing, which these days is put on LinkedIn.
        dadadatamen 3y ago
        well, change your way of picking an employer, I guess?! the thing is, almost everyone is or will be looking in the near future.
        theonlybutlet 3y ago
        What I do is of no consequence if that's all hiring managers do. These apps can become systemic.
        dadadatamen 3y ago
        attentional bias. That's not all all hiring managers do.
  - pests 3y ago
    What? They are not a neccessity. You are speaking like technology is food and water. I have family my age and older who don't never use Facebook and barely interact with technology and they get by life just fine.
- piaste 3y ago
  The "or you can give up your rights in exchange for a discount" part is the problem. You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Commercial subscription services that don't violate your privacy are 100% fine, and incidentally, as xp84 noted, are way healthier because the user is at least a customer. (I dream of a day where companies spend $0 on advertising and instead all commercial websites and social media are run on small subscriptions or frictionless micropayments and the only person they need to keep happy is the customer.) Of course "free" services have a massive advantage over paid ones. If Meta can profitably run Facebook just on generic ads without tracking, like a newspaper, that's allowed too. But if they can't, well, tough shit.
  - pests 3y ago
    > You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Sorta??? It's not like I volunteer my time to my job.
- interactivecode 3y ago
  Thats like saying, if you don’t like lead in your paint. You can just use different paint. Like yeah sure, but still some regulations that stop them from putting lead in paint is a good thing
- anilakar 3y ago
  >> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services.
  - A_non_e-moose 3y ago
    > >> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services. That's covered in the "or otherwise relinquish your rights" part. Privacy is a right, you can't sell or relinquish it, in exchange or donated, doesn't matter.
- disiplus 3y ago
  It does not work like that, the country made some laws. For example what safety rules does the car have to follow to be legal in us. You cannot just say, if you don't like that the car does not have a backup camera doesn't use it.
- stubish 3y ago
  In the case of the right of privacy, what is wrong with your suggestion is that it is what we have today, and we end up where we are today. You must sacrifice your right of privacy to use Facebook, Twitter and others. And using Facebook, Twitter and others is not a choice for many people. It is forced on many (most?) by rules of employment (some schools require teachers to be on Facebook for example), economic reasons (must be on social media to be economically competitive), or just social (all my friends are there, so I need to be there too). Choosing to retain your right of privacy is a sacrifice, which is to say that maintaining your right of privacy has a cost. The EU has said that there should not be a cost to preserving what it sees as a right. Not everyone can afford to pay that cost.
ralusek 3y ago
That’s like saying that using a site with moderation rules is asking you to sell your right to free speech, or that going to a nude spa is asking you to sell your right to privacy. I have no problem with EU regulating what Facebook can do, in the same way I accept that some places might regulate against nude spas, I just take issue with the way you framed it.
- anilakar 3y ago
  Please dont bring free speech into this. As everyone very well knows, it trumps everything else including basic human rights in a certain country.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    It is a basic human right.
- stubish 3y ago
  Going to a nude spa necessitates giving up some right to privacy. You expect the minimum necessary to provide the service you want. But you certainly don't want them filming you and posting the pics on the Internet. This is similar to how the GDPR is fine with storing personal information required to provide the service to the customer, but not storing unnecessary information or using it for other purposes. Going to a nudist bar would be a choice that necessitates giving up some right to privacy, but giving free drinks to women would be coercion and probably illegal in many courts. Free speech is always in conflict with other rights. You don't get to say whatever you want on a forum someone provided and deemed to be child friendly for example. Or rant about atheism and corruption of the clergy on a bible studies forum. Or commit fraud. This sort of problem is why free speech is not considered a right in many countries and instead a luxury. You get to say what you like but have to suffer the consequences. But your right to free speech stops at my right to not hear you. And your right to pay your employees what you want stops at their right to fair pay. The conflicts and the grey areas need mediation and government regulation.
  - ralusek 3y ago
bluelu 3y ago
It's a double standart again. Newspapers lobbied the EU that it s allowed for them (not sure if it was changed at the end). But if you go to a large european newspaper site (eg spiegel.de) then it explicitely asks you tha you pay to access it or you must agree to behavioral advertising. But facebook should not be allowed to do this.
- klabb3 3y ago
  Yes and this should be pointed out. However, it’s imo far from a simple selfish lobbying move. If behavioral advertising and tracking is not allowed by anyone, it will even the playing field as ads return to being context-centric, as it should. It’s too early to say if news papers will try to weasel out an exception for themselves in such a world, imo. More generally, you can want a change for everyone even if you are not currently doing what you’re preaching. You can play a game according to the rules and want to change the rules at the same time. While I agree this is a lower level of belief you can still want it, and argue for it, in good faith. Deviating from laws and even industry norms can be disproportionately costly, relative to your competitors, especially if you’re already struggling, which is true for most of legacy media. Also, journalists are typically not the owners of media companies, and they sometimes cover issues with conflicts of interest with their owners. That’s a healthy thing.
  - bluelu 3y ago
    Newspapers weaseled already an exeption out 2 years ago, see https://www.heise.de/news/E-Privacy-Verordnung-EU-Rat-fuer-Vorratsdatenspeicherung-und-Cookie-Walls-5051963.html https://www.heise.de/news/E-Privacy-Verordnung-EU-Rat-fuer-V...
- einarfd 3y ago
  I've never seen anything like that in any Norwegian newspaper, and I would expect some of them to try if they thought they could get away with it. But I don't think they would at least not if the retoric coming out of Datatilsynet is anything to go by. How German newspaper get away with that I have no idea. But you can't expect the Norwegian government to handle German language newspapers. If spiegel.de had a Norwegian presence though. Then it would be reasonable for Norway to have a look at it.

pests 3y ago

But as you say, they aren't asking you to give up your rights (because of the 'or pay money' clause). You can just stop using it. If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. What is wrong with that?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tagyro 3y ago
I don't agree - you can't just stop using it. Given the size of facebook (or google, amazon, microsoft, apple etc), they are ingrained in our (tech) life in such a way that one has to invest a - not negligible - amount of work to stop using them. To sum it up: companies want to have "power", but without having "responsibility".
- graphe 3y ago
  You CAN stop using them. Do you WANT to? Are you unable to? Social media addiction isn't a right, and just because you have a share to Facebook or Twitter integration doesn't mean you have to use either.
- OhNoNotAgain_99 3y ago
  [dead]
- dadadatamen 3y ago
  You can. It's almost quite literally an effort of 30 - 60 min per day or week or month, depending on how skilled you are at keeping things convenient, meaning self-hosting services and maintaining them.
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    And say getting a job, when everything is through LinkedIn?
    - dadadatamen 3y ago
      You can get the contact details of the hiring manager on the companies website or call their front desk or ask in an E-Mail to info@xyz or support@xyz or even by asking around. and there are various ways to prove your value that are not based on networks
      - theonlybutlet 3y ago
        You won't know unless you saw the listing, which these days is put on LinkedIn.
        dadadatamen 3y ago
        well, change your way of picking an employer, I guess?! the thing is, almost everyone is or will be looking in the near future.
        theonlybutlet 3y ago
        What I do is of no consequence if that's all hiring managers do. These apps can become systemic.
        dadadatamen 3y ago
        attentional bias. That's not all all hiring managers do.
- pests 3y ago
  What? They are not a neccessity. You are speaking like technology is food and water. I have family my age and older who don't never use Facebook and barely interact with technology and they get by life just fine.
piaste 3y ago
The "or you can give up your rights in exchange for a discount" part is the problem. You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Commercial subscription services that don't violate your privacy are 100% fine, and incidentally, as xp84 noted, are way healthier because the user is at least a customer. (I dream of a day where companies spend $0 on advertising and instead all commercial websites and social media are run on small subscriptions or frictionless micropayments and the only person they need to keep happy is the customer.) Of course "free" services have a massive advantage over paid ones. If Meta can profitably run Facebook just on generic ads without tracking, like a newspaper, that's allowed too. But if they can't, well, tough shit.
- pests 3y ago
  > You can't buy a car by agreeing to be a slave for 90 days either. Sorta??? It's not like I volunteer my time to my job.
interactivecode 3y ago
Thats like saying, if you don’t like lead in your paint. You can just use different paint. Like yeah sure, but still some regulations that stop them from putting lead in paint is a good thing
anilakar 3y ago
>> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > If you want to use it and not give up rights, pay money. Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services.
- A_non_e-moose 3y ago
  > >> Laws generally don't allow you to sell or otherwise relinquish your rights, > Ahh, we are not asking you to sell. We are asking you to give them in exchange for services. That's covered in the "or otherwise relinquish your rights" part. Privacy is a right, you can't sell or relinquish it, in exchange or donated, doesn't matter.
disiplus 3y ago
It does not work like that, the country made some laws. For example what safety rules does the car have to follow to be legal in us. You cannot just say, if you don't like that the car does not have a backup camera doesn't use it.
stubish 3y ago
In the case of the right of privacy, what is wrong with your suggestion is that it is what we have today, and we end up where we are today. You must sacrifice your right of privacy to use Facebook, Twitter and others. And using Facebook, Twitter and others is not a choice for many people. It is forced on many (most?) by rules of employment (some schools require teachers to be on Facebook for example), economic reasons (must be on social media to be economically competitive), or just social (all my friends are there, so I need to be there too). Choosing to retain your right of privacy is a sacrifice, which is to say that maintaining your right of privacy has a cost. The EU has said that there should not be a cost to preserving what it sees as a right. Not everyone can afford to pay that cost.

ralusek 3y ago

That’s like saying that using a site with moderation rules is asking you to sell your right to free speech, or that going to a nude spa is asking you to sell your right to privacy. I have no problem with EU regulating what Facebook can do, in the same way I accept that some places might regulate against nude spas, I just take issue with the way you framed it.

anilakar 3y ago
Please dont bring free speech into this. As everyone very well knows, it trumps everything else including basic human rights in a certain country.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  It is a basic human right.
stubish 3y ago
Going to a nude spa necessitates giving up some right to privacy. You expect the minimum necessary to provide the service you want. But you certainly don't want them filming you and posting the pics on the Internet. This is similar to how the GDPR is fine with storing personal information required to provide the service to the customer, but not storing unnecessary information or using it for other purposes. Going to a nudist bar would be a choice that necessitates giving up some right to privacy, but giving free drinks to women would be coercion and probably illegal in many courts. Free speech is always in conflict with other rights. You don't get to say whatever you want on a forum someone provided and deemed to be child friendly for example. Or rant about atheism and corruption of the clergy on a bible studies forum. Or commit fraud. This sort of problem is why free speech is not considered a right in many countries and instead a luxury. You get to say what you like but have to suffer the consequences. But your right to free speech stops at my right to not hear you. And your right to pay your employees what you want stops at their right to fair pay. The conflicts and the grey areas need mediation and government regulation.
- ralusek 3y ago

bluelu 3y ago

It's a double standart again. Newspapers lobbied the EU that it s allowed for them (not sure if it was changed at the end). But if you go to a large european newspaper site (eg spiegel.de) then it explicitely asks you tha you pay to access it or you must agree to behavioral advertising. But facebook should not be allowed to do this.

klabb3 3y ago
Yes and this should be pointed out. However, it’s imo far from a simple selfish lobbying move. If behavioral advertising and tracking is not allowed by anyone, it will even the playing field as ads return to being context-centric, as it should. It’s too early to say if news papers will try to weasel out an exception for themselves in such a world, imo. More generally, you can want a change for everyone even if you are not currently doing what you’re preaching. You can play a game according to the rules and want to change the rules at the same time. While I agree this is a lower level of belief you can still want it, and argue for it, in good faith. Deviating from laws and even industry norms can be disproportionately costly, relative to your competitors, especially if you’re already struggling, which is true for most of legacy media. Also, journalists are typically not the owners of media companies, and they sometimes cover issues with conflicts of interest with their owners. That’s a healthy thing.
- bluelu 3y ago
  Newspapers weaseled already an exeption out 2 years ago, see https://www.heise.de/news/E-Privacy-Verordnung-EU-Rat-fuer-Vorratsdatenspeicherung-und-Cookie-Walls-5051963.html https://www.heise.de/news/E-Privacy-Verordnung-EU-Rat-fuer-V...
einarfd 3y ago
I've never seen anything like that in any Norwegian newspaper, and I would expect some of them to try if they thought they could get away with it. But I don't think they would at least not if the retoric coming out of Datatilsynet is anything to go by. How German newspaper get away with that I have no idea. But you can't expect the Norwegian government to handle German language newspapers. If spiegel.de had a Norwegian presence though. Then it would be reasonable for Norway to have a look at it.