2 ms·

The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can

The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can only assume they set the price so high as an intentional deterrent. They want as few people as possible to purchase this alternative, rather than simply to try to keep their revenue satisfactory either way. In other words, they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads, but even if the GDPR does allow pay-or-OK consent schemes - this is itself an unsettled legal question - it’s far from clear that declining an unaffordably priced alternative counts as the kind of free consent the GDPR requires for consent-based processing. Lots of cases are still working their way through European DPAs and courts. And, frustratingly, I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription. They just promise not to use the information for ads. They still allow themselves to process your data for many other purposes which under EU law should have a way to say no.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier. > I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy community. (Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.)
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  > Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier. This action is explicitly about responding to EU GDPR regulations by trying to claim that people who decline a subscription are freely giving consent to the processing which the subscription would stop. From the official rulings which have so far been made about other companies by a few DPAs, it’s highly doubtful that the prohibitively high price for this tier will qualify as a viable enough alternative to the no-fee option to treat people’s consent to the processing as freely given. > This is annoying. This is Meta engaging in outright dishonest subterfuge, because the law with which they’re trying to fake compliance through this subscription option is not limited to advertising in any way. > Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small. Not in my estimation. Too many professional and social circumstances in too many countries require using Facebook, Instagram, and/or especially WhatsApp for most people to avoid them completely. For those of us (including me) who have never so far signed up with them, there’s another problem: they don’t provide a way for me to exercise my GDPR rights without being a subscriber, even though I strongly expect that they control and process much data about me uploaded by friends and family who are their users, and by Facebook tracking on other sites. (For those HN readers who realize that I’m American: I currently reside in and am located in Germany, so yes I have GDPR rights.)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier. > I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy community. (Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.)

jkaplowitz 3y ago
> Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier. This action is explicitly about responding to EU GDPR regulations by trying to claim that people who decline a subscription are freely giving consent to the processing which the subscription would stop. From the official rulings which have so far been made about other companies by a few DPAs, it’s highly doubtful that the prohibitively high price for this tier will qualify as a viable enough alternative to the no-fee option to treat people’s consent to the processing as freely given. > This is annoying. This is Meta engaging in outright dishonest subterfuge, because the law with which they’re trying to fake compliance through this subscription option is not limited to advertising in any way. > Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small. Not in my estimation. Too many professional and social circumstances in too many countries require using Facebook, Instagram, and/or especially WhatsApp for most people to avoid them completely. For those of us (including me) who have never so far signed up with them, there’s another problem: they don’t provide a way for me to exercise my GDPR rights without being a subscriber, even though I strongly expect that they control and process much data about me uploaded by friends and family who are their users, and by Facebook tracking on other sites. (For those HN readers who realize that I’m American: I currently reside in and am located in Germany, so yes I have GDPR rights.)