6 ms·

Noyb files GDPR complaint against Meta over "Pay or Okay"

135 points by robin_reala 3y ago

JacobSeated 3y ago
[flagged]
- vincnetas 3y ago
  You can't pay for your groceries with your privacy. Same as you can't sell your kidney.
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    Your comparison is quite disgusting and grotesque of course, but let os ignore that for a moment and address the false idea that users are "paying with their privacy"; such opinions is probably the result of a number of logical fallacies. There is no exchange going on, quite literally, and users get a service, basically for free. Whatever definition you make up to describe the business model does not change this fact. In addition, so-called tracking is not the problem in itself, and especially so since users are anonymized. It is things like political misinformation and resulting manipulation that is problematic – not targeted ads themselves. Risks continue to be profoundly exaggerated, and people, even those in the know, seem bend on propagating such misinformation. Please, let's stick to a factually based discussion. Derailing the discussion with grotesque and perverted irrelevant comparisons of organ trading is not helpful.
    - vincnetas 3y ago
      Ok, i can rephrase. You cant sell your right to privacy. As you can't sell any other human rights. Or any constitutional rights.
    - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
      OK, I have a better comparison: companies are not allowed to give away rotten food for 0€, and talk bollocks like "we give you a choice to pay for the fresh one". They need to dispose of it to make sure no-one attempts to eat it, even hungry people in poverty who have trouble to get the food in other ways. Because getting free food is not a fundamental right either, isn't it? Personal data is a toxic asset. It also needs to be disposed of.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      "Grotesque" ? My attention is mine. It's part of my mind's inalienable cognitive functions. And yet you would sell it over to the highest bidder for profit without my consent. I call what you're advocating for mind rape. > There is no exchange going on, quite literally Total bullshit. If there was no exchange, Meta wouldn't be offering users a "Pay or Okay" take it or leave it deal. The mere existence of this thread is evidence of the fact they were extracting value from people's personal information and attention. The existence of an alternative is evidence of the existence of the other exchange.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    Paying for groceries with privacy is not only possible, it's extremely common. That's the entire concept of a membership card (at stores which will sell to the general public).
    - vincnetas 3y ago
      Thing with discount cards is that they track you when you buy something and thats it. But you cant get 10$ discount in exchange for retailer getting a right to track all your web browsing and profiling you using that information. And EU is fighting this.
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      That's a different situation IMO. The data is constrained to what I buy from them, and my understanding under the GDPR is that they can't share it with anyone else (at least I never gave permission for that). I can use the store and not flash my membership card if I don't want them tracking a particular purchase. This option doesn't exist with Facebook, you can't opt in and out from click to click. And they share the information with any number of outside parties. Furthermore the charge that Facebook is levying vastly exceeds the value of the information they're forgoing if I pay them.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > I can use the store and not flash my membership card if I don't want them tracking a particular purchase. You might have more trouble than that. Did you use a payment card for the secret purchase? Have you ever used the same card while providing your membership information?
- tpm 3y ago
  They want the authorities to enforce laws. If the authorities (and eventually the courts) rule that what Meta does is lawful, they will have to accept that, but as of now there is controversy around that. It's Meta's duty to find a working business model in accordance with laws, not Noyb's.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  Food without paying isn’t a right. Privacy without paying is. Apples and oranges.
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    Apples and oranges. Eh? And yet, while completely rejecting my post so confidently, you somehow managed to miss a central point: We can have targeted ads and privacy, and to an extent we already do, so that is not the issue.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > We can have targeted ads and privacy, and to an extent we already do, so that is not the issue. How? Where do we have it?
  - vinaypai 3y ago
    You can get privacy without paying by not using Facebook. Getting someone to host your pictures and provide you a platform to share them isn't a fundamental right.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > Getting someone to host your pictures and provide you a platform to share them isn't a fundamental right. By my privacy is so nobody can require me to pay for things with it. What point are you trying to make?
      - vinaypai 3y ago
        I'm saying don't use Facebook. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook.
        Kbelicius 3y ago
        That doesn't matter one bit.
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  I’m unclear how you have managed to grab the completely wrong end of the stick here so tightly. Do you work in adtech?
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    What specifically do you mean by "wrong end of the stick"? It seems you are just a troll incapable of engaging in meaningful discussions.
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - JacobSeated 3y ago
        [flagged]
- alkonaut 3y ago
  > First they complain about targeted ads, then they complain about offering an alternative. Yes. I complain. Because I don't want a pay-or-be-targeted world. I'd rather then not have the services. And I have absolutely no problems with that meaning (for example) that a huge fraction of the web's "free" services and sites just disappeared. Or huge companies like Facebook either tanked or left the EU. Zero. None. I applaud this (noyb + the EU regulations) because I think it's the right way to go. That is: I think it's better to effectively outlaw entire branches of the online ecosystem, than to end up with pay-or-be-tracked.
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    Would anonymization change your mind? I am not saying it should be required, because I do not think that personally. But, anonymization with sufficient entropy should presumably invalidate any argument someone might have against targeted ads, and at the same time allow website owners to pay their employees salleries, while covering server costs. Etc. It seems Google is also working on making the "tracking" more or less client-side, in the browser, which should also measure into considerations in these discussions. Regardless, in public spaces. E.g. Streets, restaurants, banks, I expect increased surveillance is more or less inevitable, and in the future, AI will also be leveraged to track people. There is a slight double standard in all this, because people are demonizing online tracking while tolerating tracking and surveillance in the physical world. Or, worse, they are simply flat against tracking, ignoring the necessity of it. Let us say, even if Meta offered a completely ad-free experience, your data would still sit on their servers, and by definition you would still be tracked even when opted out. The only difference would be that your data would not be used to target you with ads. That is a pretty whimsical accomplishment imo. Offering a service devoid of tracking is close to being a physical impossibility with current technology. Not even decentralization would sufficiently destroy your unique signature while using the internet, and you would not want it to, because if it did, it would also be hard for others to trust that you are the person you claim to be. Political parties and governments could use your data against you, and even data collected by companies. Potentially political entities could use this for malicious purposes, and that is personally something I am more concerned about than tracking itself (or being shown targeted ads by individual companies for that matter).
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  The last time someone in Europe started talking about cake things ended real badly.
- pdpi 3y ago
  Nobody’s complaining about Facebook’s use of ads as its primary income stream. Hell, the complaint isn’t even about targeted ads. The complaint is specifically around the pervasive tracking that goes hand in hand with this particular form of targeting.
- la_oveja 3y ago
  >Paying for your groceries is the right thing to do, even if you do not want to. facebook is luring by giving away free groceries and taking pictures of your toes when youre close to sell to toe-loving private customers. thats not a proper way to pay for groceries. spying and profiling users is not ok, crazy that this is so hard to enter on some dense-skull brains
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    You could just opt out by using another platform – or better yet, self-host your own instance of Nextcloud, Mastodon, or similar. It's not like you are out of options. Meta's services are far from essential. I personally use and prefer Nextcloud, and it's actually better than the mainstream alternatives in some ways. E.g. You do not have to use Apple's notes app if you do not want it. I am tremendously irritated by the proprietary bloat that is being forced down users throats, mainly by companies such as Apple and Microsoft. But still, why insist on dictating what other website owners and companies should do with their platforms? In our part of the world, I like the idea that this is "for each themself to decide" (at least to an extent). Interoperability and compatibility with other platforms is important to strive for.for security (Apple devices texting Android devices for example, https://www.android.com/get-the-message/ https://www.android.com/get-the-message/). Undeniably, however, proprietary communication platforms are not really necessary for anyone to use, because free software alternatives exist that are often better and more secure.
    - la_oveja 3y ago
      it goes the other way around. metas service is not essential. respecting your privacy is essential.
    - hiq 3y ago
      > Meta's services are far from essential. That really depends on where and in which community you live.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      > But still, why insist on dictating what other website owners and companies should do with their platforms? In our part of the world, I like the idea that this is "for each themself to decide" Because certain business models are exploitative and we've decided to ban them as a society. Those are the rules now, you're welcome to stop doing business in the EU if you can't meet these basic requirements.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > This is almost like complaining that you have to pay for your own groceries in the super market. Personal information and attention are not currencies to pay for services with. Your entire business model needs to be declared illegal and dismantled.
leononame 3y ago
It was clear this was coming and noyb always seems to be very well prepared for their cases. I'm curious about the outcome. I'm happy that the GDPR already forced Facebook to offer a no-personalized-ads option, even though I don't really trust them that they don't keep collecting your data for when you cancel the subscription. I think there's a difficult balance to strike, but paying for not violating your privacy is not. I wish them luck!
- jacooper 3y ago
  I hope a similar ruling comut out against google. I would pay for YouTube premium in a heartbeat if it meant they will stop tracking me and stalking my activity.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    With search engines, I get actual value from them knowing what I like — e.g. "mouse" should give me the peripheral not the mammal, and the default YouTube home page if I'm not logged in is 99% irrelevant (sports and music, I don't care about either). Advert tracking, and anything where they sell on this data, that's where their interests are no longer aligned with mine.
    - jacooper 3y ago
      Maybe if I can trust them, which currently I have no basis to do so. And I don't use Google search anyway (brave search is really good), I just care about YouTube.
    - robin_reala 3y ago
      There’s nothing saying that they can’t track based on your preferences. But it needs to be opt-in, and the information processed to do that needs to be only used to do that (i.e. the consent is per functionality). The default is always no processing.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    Can't you already do that for free without Premium? https://www.idownloadblog.com/2023/02/03/how-to-stop-youtube-from-tracking-you/ https://www.idownloadblog.com/2023/02/03/how-to-stop-youtube...
jamespo 3y ago
It's strange this doesn't really talk about the option that millions of people have taken of simply not using Facebook. Max Schrems: “Fundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay € 250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back for more than a hundred years.” Is Facebook a fundamental right?
- red_admiral 3y ago
  If meta offers facebook in the EU, then according to law, people have a fundamental right to use it without personalised advertising. Meta has the fundamental right to pull out of the EU completely and shake their fist at the sky if they disagree.
- judiisis 3y ago
  Privacy is a fundamental right, advertising is okay but tracking people or pay up is not
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    That, I suppose, is why ad-companies typically invest in anonymization. It may not be perfect, but it is good enough in terms of reaching an acceptable balance between respecting privacy and someone being able to monetize an app or a website imo.
    - shortsunblack 3y ago
      Anonymization of data is largely impossible. That's an opinion of many data protection experts. Combining datasets, using open-source data from gov't sources and likes allows to "single out" individuals in no time. Further, what industry does is largely pseudonimization, not anonymization. Anonymized data is not under the scope of GDPR, whereas pseudonymized data is.
- dannyw 3y ago
  Your fundamental rights also apply to private businesses. A gaming arcade can’t refuse entry based on your ethnicity.
tener 3y ago
So... Meta has been fined for illegally using customer data, which they value at hundreds of euro per year. Can the customers sue for back payment?
- colonwqbang 3y ago
  This theory would be interesting to see tried in court. Is there an obvious legal argument against it?
  - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
    Nothing in GDPR gives you legal basis for that (the penalties under GDPR are paid to the state). But there isn't anything that prevents you to sue them either, so you just need to find another legal basis (like, to prove a damage) and convince the civil court. Civil courts have famously low standard (preponderance of evidence), so it doesn't sound easy, but it doesn't sound hard either.
    - tener 3y ago
      In general case I think it might be hard to sue a company for any fixed amount of money due: it is hard to measure this, and companies are likely to low-ball the figure anyway. Yet Meta has given a convenient, fixed number here, so perhaps such a lawsuit has a chance to succeed.
    - shortsunblack 3y ago
      An administrative fine to a company because of GDPR violations allows the data subject to use the ruling as a basis for damages in a civil case. Further, emotional damages are allowed, also. And CJEU has reaffirmed there's no "minimum threshold" for damages. A user could claim 1 euro of damages. And there's momentum to make class action-esque "collective redress" a reality, which would be a mechanism with all the pros with class action in U.S., but with much less cons. Imagine 400 million users claiming 100 euros in damages. That's some change to spare for the company.
shafyy 3y ago
noyb doing God's work once again. It's important to note the impact their leadership in these matters had for privacy in EU and around the world.
- flower-giraffe 3y ago
  I’d rather donate the 250 than pay meta https://noyb.eu/en/donations-other-support-options https://noyb.eu/en/donations-other-support-options
gizmo 3y ago
What if a privacy subscription costs $1000/mo? Does anybody believe you can use this "one cool trick" to circumvent EU privacy laws? FB is basically daring Europe to enforce their laws. I hope the entire concept of paying for privacy gets shut down hard.
- sinuhe69 3y ago
  While I’m all for privacy, I don’t see why people should not pay for using their apps. Running a platform costs tons of money. Any operator has to make their income from somewhere. In case of FB, it’s through displaying ads; or paying a fee. One can argue the fee is too high and request a reduction. Or quits using the app. The choice always exist. But nothing in this world is free. Social networking as a fundamental human right? I find the idea ludicrous, but if, then request the governments to build and operate them.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Social networking as a fundamental human right? Nobody, absolutely nobody said that ever. So the question is why are you asking that question? No, social networks are not a fundamental right. Privacy is. What is so hard to understand about that?
    - sinuhe69 3y ago
      Yes, I find it ridiculous, too. But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend?
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        There are services which costs less and provides way more. Meta is just setting an unjustified exorbitant price to drive people off of paid option, that's all. None of the services I pay costs that much yearly, and sum of top 5 most expensive services I use is still below that amount. ...or they're just an extremely inefficient company, I don't know.
yoaviram 3y ago
Note that Facebook's paid option in the EU means no targeted advertising. It does not mean no tracking. Personal data can be monetized in other ways. Kudos to Noyb. Amazing work.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  And obviously they need to know what kind of targeted ads to show you once you decide to stop paying, so the tracking will continue irregardless of any ongoing payment.
  - almostnormal 3y ago
    Probably there is more: It is also useful to show ads to non-paying friends, valuable to sell to data brokers, and made available to 3-letter agencies. For an analysis of the graph between users, does a link between two users break when one is paying or both? Don't they even track graphs beyond non-user, e.g., same non-user phone number in two user address books?
mariusor 3y ago
Since I got this pop-up I stopped using Facebook. I doubt that this will make a dent in their statistics, but I will still manifest my opposition to their action in the only way I have available to me.
yafbum 3y ago
News outlets based in Europe routinely pull this cookie wall crap. I guess they get a pass for very very principled reasons and not just because they are based in Europe whereas Facebook isn't... /s Banging Facebook over the head might make Facebook suffer, but it isn't going to create an alternative privacy-conscious social network, or even the incentives to the existence of such an alternative. It's just going to further add cost to a bunch of properties that might have once been dominant and hegemonic, but aren't anymore (hello tiktok) and destroy value that would otherwise have accrued, primarily, to advertisers whose ads now will be much more crappily targeted.
- omnimus 3y ago
  The fact other companies do the same thing doesnt mean what Facebook is doing is OK. Probably nobody (yet) filed GDPR complaint about them. Actually going after the big players is way how to set precedent. If Facebook will be allowed to do this then most likely everybody can.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    At least in Germany, our DPAs okayed the news site behavior.
    - wdb 3y ago
      Still find it out as I thought you had to offer the same functionality/content whether they accept extra cookies or not
      - Semaphor 3y ago
        out = odd? Here’s what the DPA conference had to say https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/pm/DSK_Beschluss_Bewertung_von_Pur-Abo-Modellen_auf_Websites.pdf https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/pm/DSK_Beschlus... Deepl: > Whether the payment option - e.g. a monthly subscription - is to be regarded as an equivalent alternative to consent to tracking depends in particular on whether users are offered equivalent access to the same service in return for a standard market fee. Equivalent access generally exists if the offers include the same service, at least in principle
londons_explore 3y ago
Meta would get away with it if it was "Pay or Okay or [Customize]" The 'Customize' screen could have lots of power use options for deciding how ads data was used, and sufficiently powerful that the options couldn't be explained without pages of help text, and that choosing "No" or "Yes" to all options made a config with contradictions (ie. "The configuration you have provided requires us to use age data to show you age suitable content, but you have denied us permission to use your age. Please correct your choices before continuing."). They'd still have the majority of users Pay or Okay, and a tiny minority would go the power user route, and it's existence would keep the EU happy. They'd need to convince the EU that the complexity of the customize screen was necessary due to the inherent complexity of the decisions that need to be made by the user, and not because they want to discourage the users from using it.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s correct. Consent must be opt-in, informed, and freely given: for cookies many EU countries have decided that a “Disagree” button must be as obvious (or more obvious) than the “Agree” button.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  That's a wall of nonsense. Opting out must be just as easy as opting in, it's one of the fundamental rules and "clever" workarounds like the one you describe have been repeatedly struck down.
karmasimida 3y ago
I think this is utterly ridiculous and a dangerous precedence if allowed, it is asking government to regulate the pricing directly. People can't survive without food, but it doesn't you can sell luxurious fruits? Facebook/Instagram, are not fundamental rights, nor will it impede one's ability of living without them (I have neither).
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > Facebook/Instagram, are not fundamental rights No, but privacy is. That should not be a hard concept to grasp but it seems many on HN, for whatever reason, are struggling.
- neoberg 3y ago
  No it's not asking government to regulate the pricing. If facebook said "it's 100eur/m or you can't use it at all" (which they'll never say ofc) then there wouldn't be any problems because it's then the price of the product. The way it is implemented now is it's the price of privacy - which might be acceptable in other parts of the world but not in EU.
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription. I don't see how making the user's only choice be to pay this subscription is a solution to that problem?
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription. Their argument for the price being to high is that Facebook makes about €60 per EU user per year so setting the privacy fee to about €250 seems to be too high. Their argument, the main one, is also that consent should be freely given but if one choice is behind a paywall while the other isn't then the choice isn't freely given.
al_be_back 3y ago
it was very difficult to make money in the early days of internet (90s, 2000s), so ads* (via tracking) were a quick-and-easy way to make some money. then came social networking, and magnified that* through network-effects ... they got way too comfortable and didn't see it become a major political issue - hence gov regulations and enforcement. that business model has long gone in my view - new businesses will move in and innovate in that vacuum.
Nextgrid 3y ago
A lot of people here argue that access to Facebook/other social media is not a fundamental right. I disagree - when you build something so big (either by accident or by intention) that it becomes humanity's de-facto social fabric, maybe it should be considered a fundamental right.
klaustopher 3y ago
Personally, I would not have a problem with paying for Facebook or Instagram without them abusing my personal data. But the 10€ they are charging is a ridiculous amount that is intended to drive users into opting to have their data used. I doubt that Meta makes anywhere near 10€ per months with the ads they are showing me. If they can show realistic numbers how much money they own by showing me ads, I am absolutely fine to pay that with a 10% surcharge. I doubt this will be more than 5€ per month.
sershe 3y ago
"Not only is the cost unacceptable, but industry numbers suggest that only 3 percent of people want to be tracked – while more than 99 percent decide against a payment when faced with a “privacy fee”." "Industry numbers suggest 97% of people like free stuff, but 99% decide against paying when faced with the fact that stuff costs money." ... reads like Onion. Companies somehow refuse to become charities; EU should force them, sounds logical.
shortsunblack 3y ago
Noyb has a very good tracking of succeeding with their efforts, as they take pragmatic down-to-the-letter-of-law approach. They are not activists (there's other orgs for that, like Irish Council for Civil Liberties, which takes much more aggressive approach to privacy rights. Them undertaking these efforts means that it's very likely they'll succeed. GDPR legal text quite clearly establishes that consent must be freely given. Ultimatums (pay or else) aren't freely given. Also, Meta used their primary color (blue) in the UI modal for "consent" or pay to highlight the "consent". They just can't but not build the case against themselves -- using manipulative UI patterns (priming) to get the choice they want.

135 points by robin_reala 3y ago

JacobSeated 3y ago

[flagged]

vincnetas 3y ago
You can't pay for your groceries with your privacy. Same as you can't sell your kidney.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  Your comparison is quite disgusting and grotesque of course, but let os ignore that for a moment and address the false idea that users are "paying with their privacy"; such opinions is probably the result of a number of logical fallacies. There is no exchange going on, quite literally, and users get a service, basically for free. Whatever definition you make up to describe the business model does not change this fact. In addition, so-called tracking is not the problem in itself, and especially so since users are anonymized. It is things like political misinformation and resulting manipulation that is problematic – not targeted ads themselves. Risks continue to be profoundly exaggerated, and people, even those in the know, seem bend on propagating such misinformation. Please, let's stick to a factually based discussion. Derailing the discussion with grotesque and perverted irrelevant comparisons of organ trading is not helpful.
  - vincnetas 3y ago
    Ok, i can rephrase. You cant sell your right to privacy. As you can't sell any other human rights. Or any constitutional rights.
  - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
    OK, I have a better comparison: companies are not allowed to give away rotten food for 0€, and talk bollocks like "we give you a choice to pay for the fresh one". They need to dispose of it to make sure no-one attempts to eat it, even hungry people in poverty who have trouble to get the food in other ways. Because getting free food is not a fundamental right either, isn't it? Personal data is a toxic asset. It also needs to be disposed of.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    "Grotesque" ? My attention is mine. It's part of my mind's inalienable cognitive functions. And yet you would sell it over to the highest bidder for profit without my consent. I call what you're advocating for mind rape. > There is no exchange going on, quite literally Total bullshit. If there was no exchange, Meta wouldn't be offering users a "Pay or Okay" take it or leave it deal. The mere existence of this thread is evidence of the fact they were extracting value from people's personal information and attention. The existence of an alternative is evidence of the existence of the other exchange.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Paying for groceries with privacy is not only possible, it's extremely common. That's the entire concept of a membership card (at stores which will sell to the general public).
  - vincnetas 3y ago
    Thing with discount cards is that they track you when you buy something and thats it. But you cant get 10$ discount in exchange for retailer getting a right to track all your web browsing and profiling you using that information. And EU is fighting this.
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    That's a different situation IMO. The data is constrained to what I buy from them, and my understanding under the GDPR is that they can't share it with anyone else (at least I never gave permission for that). I can use the store and not flash my membership card if I don't want them tracking a particular purchase. This option doesn't exist with Facebook, you can't opt in and out from click to click. And they share the information with any number of outside parties. Furthermore the charge that Facebook is levying vastly exceeds the value of the information they're forgoing if I pay them.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > I can use the store and not flash my membership card if I don't want them tracking a particular purchase. You might have more trouble than that. Did you use a payment card for the secret purchase? Have you ever used the same card while providing your membership information?
tpm 3y ago
They want the authorities to enforce laws. If the authorities (and eventually the courts) rule that what Meta does is lawful, they will have to accept that, but as of now there is controversy around that. It's Meta's duty to find a working business model in accordance with laws, not Noyb's.
robin_reala 3y ago
Food without paying isn’t a right. Privacy without paying is. Apples and oranges.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  Apples and oranges. Eh? And yet, while completely rejecting my post so confidently, you somehow managed to miss a central point: We can have targeted ads and privacy, and to an extent we already do, so that is not the issue.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > We can have targeted ads and privacy, and to an extent we already do, so that is not the issue. How? Where do we have it?
- vinaypai 3y ago
  You can get privacy without paying by not using Facebook. Getting someone to host your pictures and provide you a platform to share them isn't a fundamental right.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Getting someone to host your pictures and provide you a platform to share them isn't a fundamental right. By my privacy is so nobody can require me to pay for things with it. What point are you trying to make?
    - vinaypai 3y ago
      I'm saying don't use Facebook. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook.
      - Kbelicius 3y ago
        That doesn't matter one bit.
fullspectrumdev 3y ago
I’m unclear how you have managed to grab the completely wrong end of the stick here so tightly. Do you work in adtech?
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  What specifically do you mean by "wrong end of the stick"? It seems you are just a troll incapable of engaging in meaningful discussions.
  - doctor_eval 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - JacobSeated 3y ago
      [flagged]
alkonaut 3y ago
> First they complain about targeted ads, then they complain about offering an alternative. Yes. I complain. Because I don't want a pay-or-be-targeted world. I'd rather then not have the services. And I have absolutely no problems with that meaning (for example) that a huge fraction of the web's "free" services and sites just disappeared. Or huge companies like Facebook either tanked or left the EU. Zero. None. I applaud this (noyb + the EU regulations) because I think it's the right way to go. That is: I think it's better to effectively outlaw entire branches of the online ecosystem, than to end up with pay-or-be-tracked.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  Would anonymization change your mind? I am not saying it should be required, because I do not think that personally. But, anonymization with sufficient entropy should presumably invalidate any argument someone might have against targeted ads, and at the same time allow website owners to pay their employees salleries, while covering server costs. Etc. It seems Google is also working on making the "tracking" more or less client-side, in the browser, which should also measure into considerations in these discussions. Regardless, in public spaces. E.g. Streets, restaurants, banks, I expect increased surveillance is more or less inevitable, and in the future, AI will also be leveraged to track people. There is a slight double standard in all this, because people are demonizing online tracking while tolerating tracking and surveillance in the physical world. Or, worse, they are simply flat against tracking, ignoring the necessity of it. Let us say, even if Meta offered a completely ad-free experience, your data would still sit on their servers, and by definition you would still be tracked even when opted out. The only difference would be that your data would not be used to target you with ads. That is a pretty whimsical accomplishment imo. Offering a service devoid of tracking is close to being a physical impossibility with current technology. Not even decentralization would sufficiently destroy your unique signature while using the internet, and you would not want it to, because if it did, it would also be hard for others to trust that you are the person you claim to be. Political parties and governments could use your data against you, and even data collected by companies. Potentially political entities could use this for malicious purposes, and that is personally something I am more concerned about than tracking itself (or being shown targeted ads by individual companies for that matter).
dudeinjapan 3y ago
The last time someone in Europe started talking about cake things ended real badly.
pdpi 3y ago
Nobody’s complaining about Facebook’s use of ads as its primary income stream. Hell, the complaint isn’t even about targeted ads. The complaint is specifically around the pervasive tracking that goes hand in hand with this particular form of targeting.
la_oveja 3y ago
>Paying for your groceries is the right thing to do, even if you do not want to. facebook is luring by giving away free groceries and taking pictures of your toes when youre close to sell to toe-loving private customers. thats not a proper way to pay for groceries. spying and profiling users is not ok, crazy that this is so hard to enter on some dense-skull brains
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  You could just opt out by using another platform – or better yet, self-host your own instance of Nextcloud, Mastodon, or similar. It's not like you are out of options. Meta's services are far from essential. I personally use and prefer Nextcloud, and it's actually better than the mainstream alternatives in some ways. E.g. You do not have to use Apple's notes app if you do not want it. I am tremendously irritated by the proprietary bloat that is being forced down users throats, mainly by companies such as Apple and Microsoft. But still, why insist on dictating what other website owners and companies should do with their platforms? In our part of the world, I like the idea that this is "for each themself to decide" (at least to an extent). Interoperability and compatibility with other platforms is important to strive for.for security (Apple devices texting Android devices for example, https://www.android.com/get-the-message/ https://www.android.com/get-the-message/). Undeniably, however, proprietary communication platforms are not really necessary for anyone to use, because free software alternatives exist that are often better and more secure.
  - la_oveja 3y ago
    it goes the other way around. metas service is not essential. respecting your privacy is essential.
  - hiq 3y ago
    > Meta's services are far from essential. That really depends on where and in which community you live.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > But still, why insist on dictating what other website owners and companies should do with their platforms? In our part of the world, I like the idea that this is "for each themself to decide" Because certain business models are exploitative and we've decided to ban them as a society. Those are the rules now, you're welcome to stop doing business in the EU if you can't meet these basic requirements.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> This is almost like complaining that you have to pay for your own groceries in the super market. Personal information and attention are not currencies to pay for services with. Your entire business model needs to be declared illegal and dismantled.

leononame 3y ago

It was clear this was coming and noyb always seems to be very well prepared for their cases. I'm curious about the outcome. I'm happy that the GDPR already forced Facebook to offer a no-personalized-ads option, even though I don't really trust them that they don't keep collecting your data for when you cancel the subscription. I think there's a difficult balance to strike, but paying for not violating your privacy is not. I wish them luck!

jacooper 3y ago
I hope a similar ruling comut out against google. I would pay for YouTube premium in a heartbeat if it meant they will stop tracking me and stalking my activity.
- ben_w 3y ago
  With search engines, I get actual value from them knowing what I like — e.g. "mouse" should give me the peripheral not the mammal, and the default YouTube home page if I'm not logged in is 99% irrelevant (sports and music, I don't care about either). Advert tracking, and anything where they sell on this data, that's where their interests are no longer aligned with mine.
  - jacooper 3y ago
    Maybe if I can trust them, which currently I have no basis to do so. And I don't use Google search anyway (brave search is really good), I just care about YouTube.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    There’s nothing saying that they can’t track based on your preferences. But it needs to be opt-in, and the information processed to do that needs to be only used to do that (i.e. the consent is per functionality). The default is always no processing.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Can't you already do that for free without Premium? https://www.idownloadblog.com/2023/02/03/how-to-stop-youtube-from-tracking-you/ https://www.idownloadblog.com/2023/02/03/how-to-stop-youtube...

jamespo 3y ago

It's strange this doesn't really talk about the option that millions of people have taken of simply not using Facebook. Max Schrems: “Fundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay € 250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back for more than a hundred years.” Is Facebook a fundamental right?

red_admiral 3y ago
If meta offers facebook in the EU, then according to law, people have a fundamental right to use it without personalised advertising. Meta has the fundamental right to pull out of the EU completely and shake their fist at the sky if they disagree.
judiisis 3y ago
Privacy is a fundamental right, advertising is okay but tracking people or pay up is not
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  That, I suppose, is why ad-companies typically invest in anonymization. It may not be perfect, but it is good enough in terms of reaching an acceptable balance between respecting privacy and someone being able to monetize an app or a website imo.
  - shortsunblack 3y ago
    Anonymization of data is largely impossible. That's an opinion of many data protection experts. Combining datasets, using open-source data from gov't sources and likes allows to "single out" individuals in no time. Further, what industry does is largely pseudonimization, not anonymization. Anonymized data is not under the scope of GDPR, whereas pseudonymized data is.
dannyw 3y ago
Your fundamental rights also apply to private businesses. A gaming arcade can’t refuse entry based on your ethnicity.

tener 3y ago

So... Meta has been fined for illegally using customer data, which they value at hundreds of euro per year. Can the customers sue for back payment?

colonwqbang 3y ago
This theory would be interesting to see tried in court. Is there an obvious legal argument against it?
- throw_a_grenade 3y ago
  Nothing in GDPR gives you legal basis for that (the penalties under GDPR are paid to the state). But there isn't anything that prevents you to sue them either, so you just need to find another legal basis (like, to prove a damage) and convince the civil court. Civil courts have famously low standard (preponderance of evidence), so it doesn't sound easy, but it doesn't sound hard either.
  - tener 3y ago
    In general case I think it might be hard to sue a company for any fixed amount of money due: it is hard to measure this, and companies are likely to low-ball the figure anyway. Yet Meta has given a convenient, fixed number here, so perhaps such a lawsuit has a chance to succeed.
  - shortsunblack 3y ago
    An administrative fine to a company because of GDPR violations allows the data subject to use the ruling as a basis for damages in a civil case. Further, emotional damages are allowed, also. And CJEU has reaffirmed there's no "minimum threshold" for damages. A user could claim 1 euro of damages. And there's momentum to make class action-esque "collective redress" a reality, which would be a mechanism with all the pros with class action in U.S., but with much less cons. Imagine 400 million users claiming 100 euros in damages. That's some change to spare for the company.

shafyy 3y ago

noyb doing God's work once again. It's important to note the impact their leadership in these matters had for privacy in EU and around the world.

flower-giraffe 3y ago
I’d rather donate the 250 than pay meta https://noyb.eu/en/donations-other-support-options https://noyb.eu/en/donations-other-support-options

gizmo 3y ago

What if a privacy subscription costs $1000/mo? Does anybody believe you can use this "one cool trick" to circumvent EU privacy laws? FB is basically daring Europe to enforce their laws. I hope the entire concept of paying for privacy gets shut down hard.

sinuhe69 3y ago
While I’m all for privacy, I don’t see why people should not pay for using their apps. Running a platform costs tons of money. Any operator has to make their income from somewhere. In case of FB, it’s through displaying ads; or paying a fee. One can argue the fee is too high and request a reduction. Or quits using the app. The choice always exist. But nothing in this world is free. Social networking as a fundamental human right? I find the idea ludicrous, but if, then request the governments to build and operate them.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > Social networking as a fundamental human right? Nobody, absolutely nobody said that ever. So the question is why are you asking that question? No, social networks are not a fundamental right. Privacy is. What is so hard to understand about that?
  - sinuhe69 3y ago
    Yes, I find it ridiculous, too. But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend?
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      There are services which costs less and provides way more. Meta is just setting an unjustified exorbitant price to drive people off of paid option, that's all. None of the services I pay costs that much yearly, and sum of top 5 most expensive services I use is still below that amount. ...or they're just an extremely inefficient company, I don't know.

yoaviram 3y ago

Note that Facebook's paid option in the EU means no targeted advertising. It does not mean no tracking. Personal data can be monetized in other ways. Kudos to Noyb. Amazing work.

Hamuko 3y ago
And obviously they need to know what kind of targeted ads to show you once you decide to stop paying, so the tracking will continue irregardless of any ongoing payment.
- almostnormal 3y ago
  Probably there is more: It is also useful to show ads to non-paying friends, valuable to sell to data brokers, and made available to 3-letter agencies. For an analysis of the graph between users, does a link between two users break when one is paying or both? Don't they even track graphs beyond non-user, e.g., same non-user phone number in two user address books?

mariusor 3y ago

Since I got this pop-up I stopped using Facebook. I doubt that this will make a dent in their statistics, but I will still manifest my opposition to their action in the only way I have available to me.

yafbum 3y ago

News outlets based in Europe routinely pull this cookie wall crap. I guess they get a pass for very very principled reasons and not just because they are based in Europe whereas Facebook isn't... /s Banging Facebook over the head might make Facebook suffer, but it isn't going to create an alternative privacy-conscious social network, or even the incentives to the existence of such an alternative. It's just going to further add cost to a bunch of properties that might have once been dominant and hegemonic, but aren't anymore (hello tiktok) and destroy value that would otherwise have accrued, primarily, to advertisers whose ads now will be much more crappily targeted.

omnimus 3y ago
The fact other companies do the same thing doesnt mean what Facebook is doing is OK. Probably nobody (yet) filed GDPR complaint about them. Actually going after the big players is way how to set precedent. If Facebook will be allowed to do this then most likely everybody can.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  At least in Germany, our DPAs okayed the news site behavior.
  - wdb 3y ago
    Still find it out as I thought you had to offer the same functionality/content whether they accept extra cookies or not
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      out = odd? Here’s what the DPA conference had to say https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/pm/DSK_Beschluss_Bewertung_von_Pur-Abo-Modellen_auf_Websites.pdf https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/pm/DSK_Beschlus... Deepl: > Whether the payment option - e.g. a monthly subscription - is to be regarded as an equivalent alternative to consent to tracking depends in particular on whether users are offered equivalent access to the same service in return for a standard market fee. Equivalent access generally exists if the offers include the same service, at least in principle

londons_explore 3y ago

Meta would get away with it if it was "Pay or Okay or [Customize]" The 'Customize' screen could have lots of power use options for deciding how ads data was used, and sufficiently powerful that the options couldn't be explained without pages of help text, and that choosing "No" or "Yes" to all options made a config with contradictions (ie. "The configuration you have provided requires us to use age data to show you age suitable content, but you have denied us permission to use your age. Please correct your choices before continuing."). They'd still have the majority of users Pay or Okay, and a tiny minority would go the power user route, and it's existence would keep the EU happy. They'd need to convince the EU that the complexity of the customize screen was necessary due to the inherent complexity of the decisions that need to be made by the user, and not because they want to discourage the users from using it.

robin_reala 3y ago
I don’t think that’s correct. Consent must be opt-in, informed, and freely given: for cookies many EU countries have decided that a “Disagree” button must be as obvious (or more obvious) than the “Agree” button.
dns_snek 3y ago
That's a wall of nonsense. Opting out must be just as easy as opting in, it's one of the fundamental rules and "clever" workarounds like the one you describe have been repeatedly struck down.

karmasimida 3y ago

I think this is utterly ridiculous and a dangerous precedence if allowed, it is asking government to regulate the pricing directly. People can't survive without food, but it doesn't you can sell luxurious fruits? Facebook/Instagram, are not fundamental rights, nor will it impede one's ability of living without them (I have neither).

Kbelicius 3y ago
> Facebook/Instagram, are not fundamental rights No, but privacy is. That should not be a hard concept to grasp but it seems many on HN, for whatever reason, are struggling.
neoberg 3y ago
No it's not asking government to regulate the pricing. If facebook said "it's 100eur/m or you can't use it at all" (which they'll never say ofc) then there wouldn't be any problems because it's then the price of the product. The way it is implemented now is it's the price of privacy - which might be acceptable in other parts of the world but not in EU.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription. I don't see how making the user's only choice be to pay this subscription is a solution to that problem?
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription. Their argument for the price being to high is that Facebook makes about €60 per EU user per year so setting the privacy fee to about €250 seems to be too high. Their argument, the main one, is also that consent should be freely given but if one choice is behind a paywall while the other isn't then the choice isn't freely given.

al_be_back 3y ago

it was very difficult to make money in the early days of internet (90s, 2000s), so ads* (via tracking) were a quick-and-easy way to make some money. then came social networking, and magnified that* through network-effects ... they got way too comfortable and didn't see it become a major political issue - hence gov regulations and enforcement. that business model has long gone in my view - new businesses will move in and innovate in that vacuum.

Nextgrid 3y ago

A lot of people here argue that access to Facebook/other social media is not a fundamental right. I disagree - when you build something so big (either by accident or by intention) that it becomes humanity's de-facto social fabric, maybe it should be considered a fundamental right.

klaustopher 3y ago

Personally, I would not have a problem with paying for Facebook or Instagram without them abusing my personal data. But the 10€ they are charging is a ridiculous amount that is intended to drive users into opting to have their data used. I doubt that Meta makes anywhere near 10€ per months with the ads they are showing me. If they can show realistic numbers how much money they own by showing me ads, I am absolutely fine to pay that with a 10% surcharge. I doubt this will be more than 5€ per month.

sershe 3y ago

"Not only is the cost unacceptable, but industry numbers suggest that only 3 percent of people want to be tracked – while more than 99 percent decide against a payment when faced with a “privacy fee”." "Industry numbers suggest 97% of people like free stuff, but 99% decide against paying when faced with the fact that stuff costs money." ... reads like Onion. Companies somehow refuse to become charities; EU should force them, sounds logical.

shortsunblack 3y ago

Noyb has a very good tracking of succeeding with their efforts, as they take pragmatic down-to-the-letter-of-law approach. They are not activists (there's other orgs for that, like Irish Council for Civil Liberties, which takes much more aggressive approach to privacy rights. Them undertaking these efforts means that it's very likely they'll succeed. GDPR legal text quite clearly establishes that consent must be freely given. Ultimatums (pay or else) aren't freely given. Also, Meta used their primary color (blue) in the UI modal for "consent" or pay to highlight the "consent". They just can't but not build the case against themselves -- using manipulative UI patterns (priming) to get the choice they want.