3 ms·
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 us
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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.