8 ms·

Ya I am also not following what the problem is with this approach. Is that not the entire point of options? Do people feel entitled to have all free services wi

Ya I am also not following what the problem is with this approach. Is that not the entire point of options? Do people feel entitled to have all free services with no obligations of their own?

msdrigg 3y ago
So from the articles I can find about the complaints filed against Meta [1] I can't find any explanation of what would be an acceptable price for non-consent besides free. I mean like it's their right as a government to say 'you can't charge for consent. either charge everyone or no-one', but I wonder how it'll all pan out. [1](https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/meta-consent-or-pay-consumer-gdpr-complaints/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/meta-consent-or-pay-consum...)
- epolanski 3y ago
  I think the idea is that you cannot have these options like denying access to content only if user pays with $ or personal data. But the issue I find here is that Meta has not premiered this technique, the first offenders were Italian digital newspapers either requiring your data or a subscription.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    I'm never fond of these sort of comparisons, because size does matter. Meta services billions of customers around the globe - a sizable chunk of the entire human species, with a defacto monopoly in terms of raw reach and scale. For them to be held to a higher standard than e.g. an Italian newspaper is not at all unreasonable. In an ideal world the rules and regulations companies have to follow would be strongly correlated against their size, with penalties growing increasingly harsh for violations. In reality, it's the exact opposite. Small companies can get destroyed by even minor rule violations, whereas massive corporations will endlessly litigate out even absolutely overt violations, and even when they lose the cases after dragging them out endlessly, the penalties they face are entirely inconsequential - a few days of revenue at worst. That's just so wrong on so many levels.
    - epolanski 3y ago
      Yes but Italian newspapers which started the trend have faced so far no consequences and they should be more aware of our law than a US company.
      - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        Meta's EU business is orders of magnitudes larger than any Italian newspaper. They should be able to afford much better legal counsel.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Meta is free to charge money and/or run ads, but what it can't do is do mass tracking of EU people unless they somehow really want to and freely opt in to that. Charging for an ad-free experience is fine, but charging so that you don't get tracked is not a legal option in EU, privacy is an unalienable human right that's not for sale no matter what contracts they write.
idle_zealot 3y ago
If the policy is "you can't sell you privacy" that would be pretty cool. It would require tech companies to come up with a business model that doesn't profit from pervasive surveillance. It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable.
- nickff 3y ago
  >"It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable" Do societies have rights? Where are these rights defined, and how are they limited (if they are at all)? Are you talking about constitutions (and therefore states), or 'international law'?
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    The right I am referencing is that to self-governance.
    - throwway120385 3y ago
      Self-governance of what? As a person? The reason I think it's reasonable to limit your right to sell yourself as a slave is because if it wasn't limited then a lot of people in very precarious economic situations would sell themselves and there would be a very real interest in creating those situations to force more people into slavery. You can see that with the usurious interest charged by payday loan companies. Usury is also usually illegal in civilized societies for a similar reason. Similarly you shouldn't be allowed to abrogate your right to privacy because it creates an incentive to force other people to do so as well.
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    Are you genuinely, in good faith, asking if societies can define rules?!
    - nickff 3y ago
      Anyone or any group can make a rule; highwaymen and pirates can make rules. The parent comment was about a “right” to do so, which begged the question as to the origin of the right.

Ya I am also not following what the problem is with this approach. Is that not the entire point of options? Do people feel entitled to have all free services with no obligations of their own?

msdrigg 3y ago

So from the articles I can find about the complaints filed against Meta [1] I can't find any explanation of what would be an acceptable price for non-consent besides free. I mean like it's their right as a government to say 'you can't charge for consent. either charge everyone or no-one', but I wonder how it'll all pan out. [1](https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/meta-consent-or-pay-consumer-gdpr-complaints/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/meta-consent-or-pay-consum...)

epolanski 3y ago
I think the idea is that you cannot have these options like denying access to content only if user pays with $ or personal data. But the issue I find here is that Meta has not premiered this technique, the first offenders were Italian digital newspapers either requiring your data or a subscription.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I'm never fond of these sort of comparisons, because size does matter. Meta services billions of customers around the globe - a sizable chunk of the entire human species, with a defacto monopoly in terms of raw reach and scale. For them to be held to a higher standard than e.g. an Italian newspaper is not at all unreasonable. In an ideal world the rules and regulations companies have to follow would be strongly correlated against their size, with penalties growing increasingly harsh for violations. In reality, it's the exact opposite. Small companies can get destroyed by even minor rule violations, whereas massive corporations will endlessly litigate out even absolutely overt violations, and even when they lose the cases after dragging them out endlessly, the penalties they face are entirely inconsequential - a few days of revenue at worst. That's just so wrong on so many levels.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    Yes but Italian newspapers which started the trend have faced so far no consequences and they should be more aware of our law than a US company.
    - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
      Meta's EU business is orders of magnitudes larger than any Italian newspaper. They should be able to afford much better legal counsel.
PeterisP 3y ago
Meta is free to charge money and/or run ads, but what it can't do is do mass tracking of EU people unless they somehow really want to and freely opt in to that. Charging for an ad-free experience is fine, but charging so that you don't get tracked is not a legal option in EU, privacy is an unalienable human right that's not for sale no matter what contracts they write.

idle_zealot 3y ago

If the policy is "you can't sell you privacy" that would be pretty cool. It would require tech companies to come up with a business model that doesn't profit from pervasive surveillance. It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable.

nickff 3y ago
>"It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable" Do societies have rights? Where are these rights defined, and how are they limited (if they are at all)? Are you talking about constitutions (and therefore states), or 'international law'?
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  The right I am referencing is that to self-governance.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    Self-governance of what? As a person? The reason I think it's reasonable to limit your right to sell yourself as a slave is because if it wasn't limited then a lot of people in very precarious economic situations would sell themselves and there would be a very real interest in creating those situations to force more people into slavery. You can see that with the usurious interest charged by payday loan companies. Usury is also usually illegal in civilized societies for a similar reason. Similarly you shouldn't be allowed to abrogate your right to privacy because it creates an incentive to force other people to do so as well.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Are you genuinely, in good faith, asking if societies can define rules?!
  - nickff 3y ago
    Anyone or any group can make a rule; highwaymen and pirates can make rules. The parent comment was about a “right” to do so, which begged the question as to the origin of the right.