8 ms·

Meta sued by privacy group over pay up or click OK model

131 points by slow_typist 3y ago

jsnell 3y ago
Discussion on the original source (133 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38443292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38443292
fallingknife 3y ago
The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. The problem is that the companies are treating it as another money grab instead of a reasonable alternative payment option. They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. If they wanted to offer $2 bucks a month, they would probably still profit more on this, and it would also be a reasonable deal for the user. edit: not correct. Closer to $20 per month per user in the US for FB actually.
- apercu 3y ago
  ...and they will still try to find ways to use the data after you pay. Because the fines are rounding errors versus the profits.
  - sime2009 3y ago
    https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ For Facebook is would be either 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, or 4% of said revenue. A bit bigger than a rounding error.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      None of this has ever been applied, as proven by Facebook still being in business despite blatantly breaching the GDPR since 2018. Even when they got close to actually getting a deterring fine, the corrupt Irish DPA bailed them out: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
    - apercu 3y ago
      Fair, but for those 6 billion people that don't live in the EU....
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  It's the average per user, not a precise figure that fits on every user, but nevertheless I have seen no evidence to suggest that it would be inaccurate so far. Maybe you can find some?
- dkyc 3y ago
  > They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. This is somewhat incorrect. In Europe (which this is about), Facebook's average revenue per user is about $70 per year (~$6/mo), and in the US it's around $232 (~$19/mo). Taking into account the additional overhead of collecting payments from individual users, support, etc., it's definitely not orders of magnitude away. All data from Meta's last annual report: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646c-c642-42d9-9229-3892b13aabfb.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646...
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    I guess I was wrong about that. I remember reading years ago how shockingly little revenue targeted ads actually generate per user, but that must have changed. Also curious why FB is making 3x as much per user in the US vs Europe.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      Europe has stronger privacy laws.
    - Zak 3y ago
      I'd guess it's a combination of three things: GDPR reducing the effectiveness of targeted ads, the online advertising industry being more mature/established in the US, and Europe being generally more fragmented, reducing the size of ad campaigns.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      US customers have more spending power than the average EU customer. So the ads are worth more as there's more opportunity to sell.
      - consp 3y ago
        GDP with PPP compensated is on par or better in NW Europe and for all of the EU it's about 70% of the USA (which has about 100m more people than the USA). You'd expect it to be a lot closer. Yes it is most likely to be less but not a factor of 3 simply based on purchasing power alone.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. This is not what this is. It's paying or seeing ads. Tracking is done anyway. For the ads they do still sell on other platforms. What should really be the case is to have untracked ads as an option instead of targeted ones.
- izzydata 3y ago
  There is also the problem that you would pay them per month to not see ads and then they would still collect data on you and sell it. Where is this idea coming from that they are going to stop data collection just because you pay them to stop serving you ads?
- gabeaweg 3y ago
  I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be able to set whatever prices they want. They are a private company, they do not have a monopoly, and their service is anything but essential.
  - 3D30497420 3y ago
    I'm not sure if this applies in this specific case (or if this is covered in the article), but one of the main concerns is that privacy basically becomes something only the rich can afford. Of course, this sort of thing happens in basically every other aspect of our lives, but depending on how the law is written it may or may not be legal. For example, the rich can afford safer cars, but there are still minimum safety requirements. Presumably a car company could release a cheap car without seat belts, ABS brakes, etc. The market may like this, but it may not be allowed under the law. A company may charge whatever they want for non-ad or non-tracking plans, but if they are priced out of the reach of most people, they may not be following intent of the law or how it is written. Of course there's also the moral argument as well, but I'm guessing you were thinking more of the legal/economic side.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    Because the law says that consent is only valid if it is freely given and freely revocable. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. If Facebook's business model is dependent upon breaching the rights of their users, then the EU does not want their business.
- ecmascript 3y ago
  What you're writing is probably true but kind of irrelevant. They set whatever price they want and if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I block all the ads and tracking, use a specific browser for whenever I browse facebook under a fake account so paying $10 a month is not worth it to me. I maybe would pay if it was like $2 but at the same time I don't really use Meta products to actually pay for it. I agree that the price is ridiculously high but at the same time I can't blame them. At least they finally give users a choice, something I never thought would happen.
- throw_pm23 3y ago
  Yes, the idea of payment is good, I would consider using FB if they would pay me a non-trivial amount for it. Me paying for it, now, that's an interesting proposition.
- cma 3y ago
  The users that will pay are not the average user: they are worth more in online ads because they have more disposable income that they deploy online.
- d1sxeyes 3y ago
  I know you’ve acknowledged the numbers in your response are off, but nevertheless there’s a seemingly problematic assumption underlying this statement even if your numbers held true: there’s no reason that Facebook should only ask users to cover the opportunity cost difference between having ads and not having ads. Although the “appropriateness” of the fee may be called into question, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Facebook will successfully argue that with operating costs of around 6 billion per month, and around 3 billion MAU (i.e. around 2 USD/user), with good SaaS margins expected to be around 80%, a charge of around 10 USD per month is not “inappropriate”, which is almost exactly what they’re charging.
Lamad1234 3y ago
[dead]
xkcd1963 3y ago
It is rediculous and makes me ask the obvious: - why has meta not asked before for consent?* - how did they pay their business until now? - why is it so expensive? *Information privacy doesn't count obviously
- freeone3000 3y ago
  - i refuse to speculate here - from selling ads - it’s about equal to your value as an ad viewer Being an advertiser with a targeted portfolio and control over the marketplace is HUGELY profitable. Companies keep sticking ads in things for a reason, and Google and Facebook are multi-billion-dollar companies off of the ads and tracking alone.
j16sdiz 3y ago
> Scrolling through endless humblebrags without targeted ads is a fundamental right, according to privacy expert I wonder what make a right fundamental or not? Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell.. You can't let others kill you in exchange of money. UN list "right to education", which, is not that universal.. You can't get unlimited education without paying.
- Bjartr 3y ago
  Sounds like you're talking about the difference between positive and negative rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Given the clarifying instance GP mentions of "Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell" this seems more of a comparison between alienable and inalienable rights. Aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
- ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
  > wonder what make a right fundamental or not? Well, of course there is a document for that (see "Article 8"): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... > Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell. Every "real" right can't be sold, if you could it wouldn't be a right. That's why it is for example impossible to give away or sell your copyright in the EU. > You can't get unlimited education without paying. That's why the formulation in the EU paper is as follows: Article 14 Right to education 1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training. 2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education. 3. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.
crazygringo 3y ago
It's interesting how the situation seems to shift depending on the lens you view it through: A) Facebook is free, but pay €9.99/mo. if you don't want ads or ad tracking B) Facebook costs €9.99/mo., but will enable a free tier if you'll accept ads/tracking Option A seems to provoke outrage (like this article/lawsuit), while option B seems... perfectly reasonable. Even though they're the same thing. People just hate having stuff taken away from them. They feel that Facebook ought to be free because it always has been, the same way a lot of people are still bothered by checked baggage fees on airlines because checked baggage had been included for decades. But legally, there's really no difference. And companies have to make money somehow. It would be fascinating if EU regulations actually led to the birth of an alternate, optional internet model where you paid $40/mo. extra to your ISP that got sent to Meta/Google/etc. according to your browsing proportions and resulted in no ads and no ad tracking across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, AdSense, etc.
- MichaelRo 3y ago
  Loosely related on the "alternate model", maybe some inspiration from different broker operating models can be used. There are the brokers that operate on a commission basis: you get the exchange price but pay a commission on each trade. And there's the "free" brokers where there's no commission because it's already included in the spread. That is, the price you see is a resell of the original exchange price with broker's markup. I ain't fooled by "free" which can end up more expensive than transparently commissioned but maybe some people are.
- Retric 3y ago
  You misunderstood the issue, tracking is required for the free tier which is likely illegal in some areas. FB is allowed to use ads or no ads at different price points, but can’t add tracking automatically with ads. It’s like selling dates. If you’re selling your time that’s fine, so a lunch dating experience is fine. However, if you bundle sex in with a ‘overnight experience’ that’s considered prostitution and illegal in many areas.
  - LanceH 3y ago
    Stop using it. It really is that simple.
MichaelRo 3y ago
I don't get all the fuss. I remember seeing the prompt, was a bit startled as I never seen such a proposal from Facebook but YouTube used to prompt me all the time before subscribing to Premium so I didn't think anything's amiss. The decision was quick: content quality and quantity on Facebook in no way compares to YouTube, once I take out the Reels, Instagram and TikTok ripoffs (which are mostly available on YouTube as well), there's very little left. Text content is abysmal, particularly when the reference is Hacker News. Links to retarded news sites and magazines which present one line of "content" which merely repeats the all-caps title spread across 15 pages of seizure-inducing advert horror. Literally most of the use is to keep in touch with old and estranged acquaintances but that's not worth 6 or 10 euro per month they were charging for ad free.
- mariusor 3y ago
  The decision was quick for me too: I stopped using Facebook since that pop up appeared. :)
neilv 3y ago
> EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Thus instantly began a circus of bad faith by countless companies. Maybe it's time to just plain outlaw everything for which "cookie consent" UI make a show of getting consent. Doing a cookie consent UI would also be illegal. Like (many places) prostitution is illegal, and soliciting it is illegal.
- jplona 3y ago
  What is the connection between cookies and prostitution?
  - codedokode 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - neilv 3y ago
    Surveillance and prostitution are arguably both violations of privacy/self human rights. Which society might decide may not be compelled nor bought&sold.
charles_f 3y ago
I don't see the alternative they propose? Pay up or don't use? They still need to pay their devs and the infrastructure (and make a profit, per current legislation and model).
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Don't collect private info to show ads?
  - etchalon 3y ago
    Obviously, despite every form of advertisement that isn't on the internet not being able to collect private information about individual users, that could never work.
throw20231129 3y ago
I don't understand the obsession with Meta and ads here, because it seems so disproportionally overblown when compared with real issues. Ads are so much the least of our worries that I'm not sure what this fight means in the context of this dystopian century. Autistic escapism? A distraction?
- 93po 3y ago
  Just because there are bigger fish to fry doesn’t mean people shouldn’t pay attention to this
- dylan604 3y ago
  ads are what fund these people
- d8c6c050cb0a4d7 3y ago
  This fight is being taken up by a privacy group noyb. It is not necessarily against Meta directly, but against all websites that attempt to force consent for tracking. Noyb is looking to set a precedent. Meta is the biggest company doing this, and so a win here would send the message of 'If Meta can not defend this, then a smaller website definitely can not defend this'. Noyb has been known in the past to create mass filings against companies that have a clear, well defined breach of privacy. As to if there are bigger fights to fight. Probably. But noyb has chosen to fight this fight, and I think that is fine. Someone else will have to pick up the other fights.
- blackbear_ 3y ago
  To maximize revenue you need to maximize the number of ads people see. To maximize the number of ads people see, you maximize the amount of time people spend on the platform. To maximize the time people spend on the platform you need highly engaging content. The cheapest form of highly engaging content is mostly composted of clickbaits, polarizing news, disinformation, conspiracy theories, etc. And when people spend most of their time with this kind of content, they tend to lose the ability to engage with serious, thoughtful, reasoned, informed, and nuanced content, first because it's hard to find and second because it requires genuine effort to consume.
akie 3y ago
Obviously this would happen, and most obviously they will win. It's a blatant and intentional breaking of the law.
waltbosz 3y ago
> Or one could just uninstall Facebook, delete one's account, and walk away from the whole mess. I like this idea.
xeckr 3y ago
The user still has the option not to consent to either option, in which case they don't get to use the service and their privacy is respected. I don't think there is a case to be made against Meta here. What alternative did the group envision exactly? The company has to make money somehow, so "free and private" is off the table. That leaves us with the option "pay or your account gets deactivated", but who benefits from this solution?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It's one thing to not read the article, another to not read the other comments in a discussion forum. :D A lot of people are mentioning the possibility of ads without tracking or the gathering of personal information. Less lucrative for Meta, but certainly a workable alternative.
sensanaty 3y ago
I think the worst part is that I don't trust the parasite that is Meta to not still track paying users anyways. If anything, they're probably more likely to be tracked even more invasively after they pay up. You telling me the company doing all the shadow profile crap is gonna suddenly stop tracking you just cause you pay up? If you believe that, I've got a bridge hot off the presses for you. And what happens if you stop paying eventually? You've just indicated to them that you're a juicy target to harvest data from, so you're even more fucked and are gonna get even worse privacy intrusions than ever before.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Here is the complaint: https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Complaint%20-%20Meta%20Pay%20or%20Okay%20-%20REDACTED.pdf https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Complaint%20-%20...

131 points by slow_typist 3y ago

Discussion on the original source (133 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38443292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38443292

fallingknife 3y ago

The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. The problem is that the companies are treating it as another money grab instead of a reasonable alternative payment option. They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. If they wanted to offer $2 bucks a month, they would probably still profit more on this, and it would also be a reasonable deal for the user. edit: not correct. Closer to $20 per month per user in the US for FB actually.

apercu 3y ago
...and they will still try to find ways to use the data after you pay. Because the fines are rounding errors versus the profits.
- sime2009 3y ago
  https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ For Facebook is would be either 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, or 4% of said revenue. A bit bigger than a rounding error.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    None of this has ever been applied, as proven by Facebook still being in business despite blatantly breaching the GDPR since 2018. Even when they got close to actually getting a deterring fine, the corrupt Irish DPA bailed them out: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
  - apercu 3y ago
    Fair, but for those 6 billion people that don't live in the EU....
JacobSeated 3y ago
It's the average per user, not a precise figure that fits on every user, but nevertheless I have seen no evidence to suggest that it would be inaccurate so far. Maybe you can find some?
dkyc 3y ago
> They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. This is somewhat incorrect. In Europe (which this is about), Facebook's average revenue per user is about $70 per year (~$6/mo), and in the US it's around $232 (~$19/mo). Taking into account the additional overhead of collecting payments from individual users, support, etc., it's definitely not orders of magnitude away. All data from Meta's last annual report: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646c-c642-42d9-9229-3892b13aabfb.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646...
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I guess I was wrong about that. I remember reading years ago how shockingly little revenue targeted ads actually generate per user, but that must have changed. Also curious why FB is making 3x as much per user in the US vs Europe.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Europe has stronger privacy laws.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I'd guess it's a combination of three things: GDPR reducing the effectiveness of targeted ads, the online advertising industry being more mature/established in the US, and Europe being generally more fragmented, reducing the size of ad campaigns.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    US customers have more spending power than the average EU customer. So the ads are worth more as there's more opportunity to sell.
    - consp 3y ago
      GDP with PPP compensated is on par or better in NW Europe and for all of the EU it's about 70% of the USA (which has about 100m more people than the USA). You'd expect it to be a lot closer. Yes it is most likely to be less but not a factor of 3 simply based on purchasing power alone.
wkat4242 3y ago
> The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. This is not what this is. It's paying or seeing ads. Tracking is done anyway. For the ads they do still sell on other platforms. What should really be the case is to have untracked ads as an option instead of targeted ones.
izzydata 3y ago
There is also the problem that you would pay them per month to not see ads and then they would still collect data on you and sell it. Where is this idea coming from that they are going to stop data collection just because you pay them to stop serving you ads?
gabeaweg 3y ago
I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be able to set whatever prices they want. They are a private company, they do not have a monopoly, and their service is anything but essential.
- 3D30497420 3y ago
  I'm not sure if this applies in this specific case (or if this is covered in the article), but one of the main concerns is that privacy basically becomes something only the rich can afford. Of course, this sort of thing happens in basically every other aspect of our lives, but depending on how the law is written it may or may not be legal. For example, the rich can afford safer cars, but there are still minimum safety requirements. Presumably a car company could release a cheap car without seat belts, ABS brakes, etc. The market may like this, but it may not be allowed under the law. A company may charge whatever they want for non-ad or non-tracking plans, but if they are priced out of the reach of most people, they may not be following intent of the law or how it is written. Of course there's also the moral argument as well, but I'm guessing you were thinking more of the legal/economic side.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  Because the law says that consent is only valid if it is freely given and freely revocable. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. If Facebook's business model is dependent upon breaching the rights of their users, then the EU does not want their business.
ecmascript 3y ago
What you're writing is probably true but kind of irrelevant. They set whatever price they want and if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I block all the ads and tracking, use a specific browser for whenever I browse facebook under a fake account so paying $10 a month is not worth it to me. I maybe would pay if it was like $2 but at the same time I don't really use Meta products to actually pay for it. I agree that the price is ridiculously high but at the same time I can't blame them. At least they finally give users a choice, something I never thought would happen.
throw_pm23 3y ago
Yes, the idea of payment is good, I would consider using FB if they would pay me a non-trivial amount for it. Me paying for it, now, that's an interesting proposition.
cma 3y ago
The users that will pay are not the average user: they are worth more in online ads because they have more disposable income that they deploy online.
d1sxeyes 3y ago
I know you’ve acknowledged the numbers in your response are off, but nevertheless there’s a seemingly problematic assumption underlying this statement even if your numbers held true: there’s no reason that Facebook should only ask users to cover the opportunity cost difference between having ads and not having ads. Although the “appropriateness” of the fee may be called into question, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Facebook will successfully argue that with operating costs of around 6 billion per month, and around 3 billion MAU (i.e. around 2 USD/user), with good SaaS margins expected to be around 80%, a charge of around 10 USD per month is not “inappropriate”, which is almost exactly what they’re charging.

Lamad1234 3y ago

[dead]

xkcd1963 3y ago

It is rediculous and makes me ask the obvious: - why has meta not asked before for consent?* - how did they pay their business until now? - why is it so expensive? *Information privacy doesn't count obviously

freeone3000 3y ago
- i refuse to speculate here - from selling ads - it’s about equal to your value as an ad viewer Being an advertiser with a targeted portfolio and control over the marketplace is HUGELY profitable. Companies keep sticking ads in things for a reason, and Google and Facebook are multi-billion-dollar companies off of the ads and tracking alone.

j16sdiz 3y ago

> Scrolling through endless humblebrags without targeted ads is a fundamental right, according to privacy expert I wonder what make a right fundamental or not? Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell.. You can't let others kill you in exchange of money. UN list "right to education", which, is not that universal.. You can't get unlimited education without paying.

Bjartr 3y ago
Sounds like you're talking about the difference between positive and negative rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Given the clarifying instance GP mentions of "Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell" this seems more of a comparison between alienable and inalienable rights. Aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
> wonder what make a right fundamental or not? Well, of course there is a document for that (see "Article 8"): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... > Some right, like the right to life, is illegal to sell. Every "real" right can't be sold, if you could it wouldn't be a right. That's why it is for example impossible to give away or sell your copyright in the EU. > You can't get unlimited education without paying. That's why the formulation in the EU paper is as follows: Article 14 Right to education 1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training. 2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education. 3. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.

crazygringo 3y ago

It's interesting how the situation seems to shift depending on the lens you view it through: A) Facebook is free, but pay €9.99/mo. if you don't want ads or ad tracking B) Facebook costs €9.99/mo., but will enable a free tier if you'll accept ads/tracking Option A seems to provoke outrage (like this article/lawsuit), while option B seems... perfectly reasonable. Even though they're the same thing. People just hate having stuff taken away from them. They feel that Facebook ought to be free because it always has been, the same way a lot of people are still bothered by checked baggage fees on airlines because checked baggage had been included for decades. But legally, there's really no difference. And companies have to make money somehow. It would be fascinating if EU regulations actually led to the birth of an alternate, optional internet model where you paid $40/mo. extra to your ISP that got sent to Meta/Google/etc. according to your browsing proportions and resulted in no ads and no ad tracking across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, AdSense, etc.

MichaelRo 3y ago
Loosely related on the "alternate model", maybe some inspiration from different broker operating models can be used. There are the brokers that operate on a commission basis: you get the exchange price but pay a commission on each trade. And there's the "free" brokers where there's no commission because it's already included in the spread. That is, the price you see is a resell of the original exchange price with broker's markup. I ain't fooled by "free" which can end up more expensive than transparently commissioned but maybe some people are.
Retric 3y ago
You misunderstood the issue, tracking is required for the free tier which is likely illegal in some areas. FB is allowed to use ads or no ads at different price points, but can’t add tracking automatically with ads. It’s like selling dates. If you’re selling your time that’s fine, so a lunch dating experience is fine. However, if you bundle sex in with a ‘overnight experience’ that’s considered prostitution and illegal in many areas.
- LanceH 3y ago
  Stop using it. It really is that simple.

MichaelRo 3y ago

I don't get all the fuss. I remember seeing the prompt, was a bit startled as I never seen such a proposal from Facebook but YouTube used to prompt me all the time before subscribing to Premium so I didn't think anything's amiss. The decision was quick: content quality and quantity on Facebook in no way compares to YouTube, once I take out the Reels, Instagram and TikTok ripoffs (which are mostly available on YouTube as well), there's very little left. Text content is abysmal, particularly when the reference is Hacker News. Links to retarded news sites and magazines which present one line of "content" which merely repeats the all-caps title spread across 15 pages of seizure-inducing advert horror. Literally most of the use is to keep in touch with old and estranged acquaintances but that's not worth 6 or 10 euro per month they were charging for ad free.

mariusor 3y ago
The decision was quick for me too: I stopped using Facebook since that pop up appeared. :)

neilv 3y ago

> EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Thus instantly began a circus of bad faith by countless companies. Maybe it's time to just plain outlaw everything for which "cookie consent" UI make a show of getting consent. Doing a cookie consent UI would also be illegal. Like (many places) prostitution is illegal, and soliciting it is illegal.

jplona 3y ago
What is the connection between cookies and prostitution?
- codedokode 3y ago
  [flagged]
- neilv 3y ago
  Surveillance and prostitution are arguably both violations of privacy/self human rights. Which society might decide may not be compelled nor bought&sold.

charles_f 3y ago

I don't see the alternative they propose? Pay up or don't use? They still need to pay their devs and the infrastructure (and make a profit, per current legislation and model).

bcrosby95 3y ago
Don't collect private info to show ads?
- etchalon 3y ago
  Obviously, despite every form of advertisement that isn't on the internet not being able to collect private information about individual users, that could never work.

throw20231129 3y ago

I don't understand the obsession with Meta and ads here, because it seems so disproportionally overblown when compared with real issues. Ads are so much the least of our worries that I'm not sure what this fight means in the context of this dystopian century. Autistic escapism? A distraction?

93po 3y ago
Just because there are bigger fish to fry doesn’t mean people shouldn’t pay attention to this
dylan604 3y ago
ads are what fund these people
d8c6c050cb0a4d7 3y ago
This fight is being taken up by a privacy group noyb. It is not necessarily against Meta directly, but against all websites that attempt to force consent for tracking. Noyb is looking to set a precedent. Meta is the biggest company doing this, and so a win here would send the message of 'If Meta can not defend this, then a smaller website definitely can not defend this'. Noyb has been known in the past to create mass filings against companies that have a clear, well defined breach of privacy. As to if there are bigger fights to fight. Probably. But noyb has chosen to fight this fight, and I think that is fine. Someone else will have to pick up the other fights.
blackbear_ 3y ago
To maximize revenue you need to maximize the number of ads people see. To maximize the number of ads people see, you maximize the amount of time people spend on the platform. To maximize the time people spend on the platform you need highly engaging content. The cheapest form of highly engaging content is mostly composted of clickbaits, polarizing news, disinformation, conspiracy theories, etc. And when people spend most of their time with this kind of content, they tend to lose the ability to engage with serious, thoughtful, reasoned, informed, and nuanced content, first because it's hard to find and second because it requires genuine effort to consume.

akie 3y ago

Obviously this would happen, and most obviously they will win. It's a blatant and intentional breaking of the law.

waltbosz 3y ago

> Or one could just uninstall Facebook, delete one's account, and walk away from the whole mess. I like this idea.

xeckr 3y ago

The user still has the option not to consent to either option, in which case they don't get to use the service and their privacy is respected. I don't think there is a case to be made against Meta here. What alternative did the group envision exactly? The company has to make money somehow, so "free and private" is off the table. That leaves us with the option "pay or your account gets deactivated", but who benefits from this solution?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
It's one thing to not read the article, another to not read the other comments in a discussion forum. :D A lot of people are mentioning the possibility of ads without tracking or the gathering of personal information. Less lucrative for Meta, but certainly a workable alternative.

sensanaty 3y ago

I think the worst part is that I don't trust the parasite that is Meta to not still track paying users anyways. If anything, they're probably more likely to be tracked even more invasively after they pay up. You telling me the company doing all the shadow profile crap is gonna suddenly stop tracking you just cause you pay up? If you believe that, I've got a bridge hot off the presses for you. And what happens if you stop paying eventually? You've just indicated to them that you're a juicy target to harvest data from, so you're even more fucked and are gonna get even worse privacy intrusions than ever before.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Here is the complaint: https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Complaint%20-%20Meta%20Pay%20or%20Okay%20-%20REDACTED.pdf https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Complaint%20-%20...