Curious how they expect this to work for people who aren’t even “paying” [with money or data] Meta users. Those people who never signed up for any of their services yet are still being tracked across websites via those social sharing buttons and the like. Are they supposed to pay Meta to not hoard their data from all the other websites, despite never setting foot on a Meta site?
Comment on ‘Meta is out of options’: EU regulators reject its privacy fee for Facebook and Instagram
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
arguing that it’s not real consent if the only alternative is shelling out yet another monthly subscription fee
Very true, and hopefully many other verdicts will follow, like "It’s not real consent if…this or that.
This dark pattern has started to spread everywhere already.
Piece_Maker@feddit.uk 5 months ago
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Those people who never signed up for any of their services yet are still being tracked across websites via those social sharing buttons and the like
It is plain illegal what META is doing there. They just haven’t been dragged to court so far.
But with these buttons, the websites which includes them are offenders, too.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
They are, but 95% of them have no clue what Facebook is using their site to do. They just handwave it away as “add this button and users can like your posts” without any actual effort to inform the site owner how invasive they are.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 5 months ago
see I’d generally pay for privacy stuff
but I would need to pay. and theres no private way to do that.
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“Nice data you got there. Be a shame if someone sold that for a premium”
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I wish they’d do that in the US for the stupid TOS nonsense they pull. I’m guessing a lot of it wouldn’t hold up in court, but it’s unlikely to get challenged because an individual just doesn’t have the resources to do so, so it chills people into going along with it.
For example:
- forced arbitration is on all the things now
- Motorola’s sketchy forfeiture of rights if you flash your phone’s bootloader
- "warranty stickers" - the FTC has actually cracked down a bit, but companies still try to do it
A lot of this is hidden behind dozens of pages of TOS that pretty much nobody reads. A general, “massive TOS isn’t real consent” law could do wonders to improve consumer protections. Specifically, this is what I’d like to see:
- any contract must be reasonably understood by an individual with an 8th grade education
- contracts stay in force unless both parties agree to a change, and service may not be interrupted just because of a failure to agree to new terms
- no forced arbitration, though private arbitration may be used if both parties consent
- anything more than an average person can read in 5 minutes requires a formal contract, not a TOS
Or something along those lines. Consumer protections suck here, and I think this could solve a lot of the problems. Airing dirty laundry can solve a lot of problems.
upandatom@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Some good ideas here. Probably go with a word limit in your last bullet instead of the 5 minutes
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Yeah, that’s probably legally reasonable. I’m sure a real lawyer could propose better restrictions as well.
Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It’s not consent if there are fifty pages of legalese to read before you press accept.
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’m a big fan of TOSDR and recommend everyone check it out. It’s a site dedicated to translating TOS and EULA into English by attorneys working pro-bono. It’s amazing what you’ll find in some of those agreements.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I did not know this existed, thank you!
You waive your moral rights …
Wow, I didn’t even know it was possible to waive our moral rights, some heavy shit right there.
And I had to lol when I saw it was coming from Blizzard of all places.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I’m guessing that’s not enforceable per much anywhere, hence the “unless prohibited by law” part. But they stick it in there so they can scare you into giving up a legal fight. Most terms of service are throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
In context it means all user content submitted in the games is effectively fully owned by Blizzard, a copyright assignment clause (this differs from the typical “we get a perpetual license to what you submit to us”)
Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 months ago
The escorts in the comments wildin’ out. Sheesh.
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Also, you really should make a separate post about this, to bring awareness more widely.
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Go for it. I’m still pretty new to Lemmy. I don’t want it getting ignored because people think I’m a bot because of my new account. Lol
CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Second this. I stumbled across this thread, and the arguments are solid, could absolutely bring greater benefit to the community as its own post in my opinion.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I can hear PayPal giggling
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 months ago
There’s a core tenet in EU consumer protection law that if clauses aren’t clear enough to understand by laymen, they can be challenged.