10 ms·

But they can? They just have to pay then. Which seems fair since targeted ads are worth much more than untargeted ones?

• itopaloglu83 2y ago
  No. People used to be able to trade their freedom for shelter and food as well. Are you saying that practice should've continued as well? Privacy is a human right and it cannot be exchanged for goods and services.
  • phyrex 2y ago
    You’re just describing a job, and I really, honestly don’t see how getting shown targeted ads is such a privacy violation. Meta doesn’t sell the data, nobody looks at that data on an individual level, it’s just used to show you the most relevant advertisements
    • itopaloglu83 2y ago
      I would happily agree if the practice stayed at that level of providing ads for my zip code or locality only. It is far more intrusive and there is no way to fully opt out. I just want to be able to say do not track me or sell my information to third parties.
• Doxin 2y ago
  The law is written such that the opt-out has to be a free choice. Demanding payment is not a free choice. In fact having the opt-out behind a maze of weird toggles when opt-in isn't, is not a free choice either. The EU has decided that people should have a right to opt-out of having their privacy violated. Whether or not you think that's a good idea it DOES explain why things like "pay to opt-out" aren't going to fly.