4 ms·
Many people here are conflating the idea of paying versus ads, whilst the discussion is about privacy instead. There's nothing wrong with charging money for a
by iteratethis 3y ago
Many people here are conflating the idea of paying versus ads, whilst the discussion is about privacy instead.
There's nothing wrong with charging money for a service or alternatively let them watch ads. The problem is that the ads are tracking ads. If they would be simple contextual ads (dynamic based on surrounding content), there would be no privacy violation and thus no issue.
I believe the EU direction is that when you decline tracking, it should have no meaningful impact on your experience. Because if that would be the case, there's no real "free consent". Again, declining tracking is not the same as declining ads. Privacy should not cost money to secure, it should be a default and is a basic human right.
Facebook obviously disagrees.
- scarface_74 3y agoIt’s really not that hard. If you care about your privacy, don’t use products that don’t coincide with your beliefs
- sime2009 3y agoIt's really not that hard. Under GDPR you have a right to privacy, and companies can't demand you give it up as part of some kind of condition to gain access to their service.
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd Facebook came up with a reasonable alternative - you can exchange your money for the service.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoThey came up with an illegal alternative. If they want to run a paid service, fine, but they can't make avoiding tracking contingent on payment.
- scarface_74 3y agoOkay they can force everyone to pay in the EU. Would that make the regulators happy? Would that make the users happy?
- merelysounds 3y agoIt’s not always as easy. E.g. some small business owners must either maintain a social media presence on popular platforms or lose a significant part of their profits. Having all users protected by default sounds ideal to me.
- scarface_74 3y agoand how many small businesses are enabled by being able to target thier audience based on their demographic data? Users are protected - no one is forced to go to Facebook and businesses have been operating for centuries without social media.
- iteratethis 3y agoPrivacy is not a belief, it is law.
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd Facebook said users in the EU can pay. Do you really think users are happy with that?
- iteratethis 3y agoNo, and they won't pay. They'll just hit "accept tracking" and carry on. And that's exactly the point the EU is making: it's not truly free consent.
- scarface_74 3y agoSo people used their own free will to make a choice that the government doesn’t agree with and therefore a law is needed?
- dfxm12 3y agoIt's worth noting that Meta famously created shadow profiles. Not using a site is not sufficient when your data is for sale or sitting in some unsecured manner, waiting to be stolen.
- sonicanatidae 3y agoWho would trust them? Even if one paid to not be tracked, they will still be tracked and that info will generate revenue. Once it's found out, they will pay a pittance fine and continue to track whomever they like. Source: That's literally how businesses work..outside...right now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cudder 3y agoIn the real world it's not that simple. I'd love to close down my WhatsApp account - the only Meta service I've ever used - but unfortunately my employer requires us all to be in a WhatsApp group. I don't really have a choice in the matter if I want to get paid. X is another tough one. Many politicians and public services use it as their primary channel for announcements. I've been using Nitter as a workaround ever since Elon blocked reading feeds without an account, but I feel like I shouldn't need to.
- scarface_74 3y agoIn that case create a work WhatsApp profile that’s separate from your personal info.
- ragestorm 3y agoSounds like your work needs to provide you hardware to support their restrictions.