They can put all the ads they want to finance their services, but if they want to use targeted ones, they have to ask for unbiased users consent.
Comment on EU tells Meta it can't paywall privacy
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
I’m all for GDPR and really enjoy its protections, but I don’t understand this one. If facebook says they need €10/mo to provide their services and gives us the choice to either pay that or to pay with targeted ads, then how does that infringe upon our data integrity? The service seems to be worth something, so the EU cannot expect facebook to just give it out for less, can they? What’s the basis for this?
krcr@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
I can’t find the word ‘unbiased’ in the GDPR. All it asks for is consent:
- Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;
In the case of facebook, the user gives consent for the purpose of being served targeted advertising in exchange for the provided service.
krcr@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Yes the term is “freely given consent” indeed, but more importantly: Why would you not trust the EU data protection board if they say themselves consent-or-pay is not okay?
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
Suppose non-targeted ads didn’t generate enough revenue. Would it then be legitimate to require facebook to provide their service at a loss?
ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 months ago
I would say no. Just as it’s not legitimate for any other business to break the law even if that means they’re not going to be profitable
snooggums@midwest.social 2 months ago
Meta is currently acooping all my data as someone who does not a Meta account, which I would need to create ao I could pay them money not to do that.
No, not all the targeted advertising that they collect data for is through Facebook/whatever else they own now.
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
That is a completely different issue. On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.
On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”
lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.
Good that you brought that up. And that deserves more attention!
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
I didn’t read the massive thread, no idea if the correct answer is already in there, but there seems to be a lot of text and the answer is realy short.:
This does not prohibit them from using Ads to finance the service.
It just prohibits data collection.
Those two things are not the same.lud@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It also doesn’t prohibit Facebook from being a purely paid service.
ultratiem@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Privacy is a fundamental human right. It’s not a luxury or a means to extort or monetize customers. That’s why the EU is getting involved. Because companies like Meta will leverage them against monetization.
It’s like going to your doctor and having them tell you that unless you pay them $50 for the visit, they’ll sell your medical data to whomever.
A company has to build their services on top of privacy and security, not use either as a means to monetize or boost profits. That’s what the EU is fighting for. Because we all know what happens when it’s left up to the companies…
BolexForSoup@kbin.social 2 months ago
This assumes everyone who values privacy can afford another $10mo sub in their life. People with more disposable income have better access. In an issue of consent that shouldn’t be the case.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
Using Facebook is not something that’s necessary. You’re asking a company to give away services for free.
The whole reason it’s free is because you are the product, and it’s almost always been that way. If you value your privacy and don’t want to pay for Facebook, that’s a personal decision, and the government shouldn’t be involved.
DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Let’s say that I’ve never had a Facebook account, but Facebook still has a lot of data it has collected about me from multiple sources, including other Facebook users, who might post photos that I am in, or share information about me in posts, neither of which i gave consent to anyone to share.
Is it fair that my only option to protect my private information is to CREATE a Facebook account and pay them to STOP collecting and selling my private information?
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
That’s not what is happening here. Facebook is offering to let you pay for an ad free experience. It has nothing to do with shadow profiles.
BolexForSoup@kbin.social 2 months ago
You are conflating a lot of different things here and I’m a little too busy at work today to completely disentangle it, but the short version is that none of us are ignorant about what “free“ means online. That is not the debate here so I’m not sure why you’re going off on that when I don’t even disagree there in the first place. It’s just not relevant.
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
You’re framing this as if a facebook account were mandatory. If you can’t afford $10 per month, don’t use facebook. I don’t.
BolexForSoup@kbin.social 2 months ago
I never said anything of the sort and I don't know why whether or not the service is mandatory matters. The issue isn't the service, it's their assumptions about what rights we do or don't have. It has to be opt-in as per GDPR, facebook by putting up a cost has made it opt-out and tied to a monthly expense.
racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Just wondering, do you know that reading the article where it’s all explained in detail is an option?
Before the change 3% of facebook users agreed to be tracked, after “pay or be tracked” suddenly that jumped to over 90%. The entire point of GDPR is that privacy is a really hard thing to grasp, and that companies have capabilities most people can’t even imagine. So the GDPR demands consent to be given freely. Giving users the choice between yet another subscription or “consent” is clearly not free consent, your “free consent” doesn’t jump from 3% to 90% if you’re not basically coercing your users.
“yeah, but they have the option to pay”. Yeah, and then i can start paying for google (each service seperately with complex bundles of course), and facebook, and reddit, and twitter and tiktok and … and of course everyone has hundreds of dollars to spend on online services to continue using the internet the way we’ve been using it for a decade.
“yeah, but you could use other services”, yeah, i could go to a facebook alternative where none of my friends or family are. Or a youtube alternative where hardly anyone posts videos or… These sites have gained a natural monopoly by being free, and now suddenly i have to pay to not have my rights violated.
And will this long term mean sites like facebook, youtube, … become unprofitable and collapse? I for sure hope so yes. These companies gained a monopoly in big parts of the internet, and will make insane profits of being in that position either via ads or subscriptions. This is a terrible place for society to be in, and the sooner they collapse, the sooner we as society can start figuring out what would be a model that does work and isn’t hostile to its user.
LWD@lemm.ee 2 months ago
gives us the choice to either pay that or to pay with targeted ads,
Facebook never offered that choice. The only options were
- Free: All of your data gets and used sold (and you get ads)
- Paid: All of your data gets used and sold (except for the stuff that would usually be used to show ads)
archomrade@midwest.social 2 months ago
They can still serve you ads, they simply cannot help themselves to your data.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
Yeah, to me it sounds like Facebook is making targeted advertising opt-in, which is a good thing.
Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
It should have been opt-in since the GDPR went into force. This is Facebook winding around it.
TheEntity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They can just charge €10/mo like every other company does, for example Netflix. They can’t offer it as an alternative to the “freely given consent”. It’s not freely given if the alternative is to pay to not give this consent.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
You’re free to not use Facebook.
Also, your argument breaks down because there are plenty of free streaming platforms that use targeted advertising as payment for their services.
If anything, Facebook doing this is surprising because they’re making data collection opt-in.
ZeDoTelhado@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The biggest problem with this approach is basically Facebook saying that you have to pay for a right, meaning, if the law tells you that you can, and should, always have a say if you are followed around or not, you mist have that capability. What Facebook is doing is put a right behind a paywall, which is absurd
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
If I understand you correctly, you’re making the same argument as !snooggums@midwest.social above, so I’ll copy answer to them here:
That is a completely different issue. On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.
On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
This is just about paying to not have ads, not about data collection.
TheEntity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Firstly, this is not “my argument”, this is EU’s argument.
Secondly, none of these platforms present it as a choice between paying and giving the kind of consent that by law needs to be optional and freely given.
Thirdly, being free to not use a service that is breaking the law does not make it any less illegal.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
not really, its so ubiquitous some of their services cant be not used.
its impossible to exist in my country without whatsapp, most businesses do their customer service through whatsapp now.
lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
My goodness. That is incredibly sad :(
0x0@programming.dev 2 months ago
No, it’s not. It’s just less convenient.
BolexForSoup@kbin.social 2 months ago
You’re free to not own or use a car. Should we have no rights when it comes to cars as well?
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
You have the right to not own a car. But if you do, you must have insurance for it (in Germany, at least). You cannot hide behind GDPR and say “I have a right to my data. I must not be asked to give it to any insurer without my consent.” You also need to have a driver’s license with your name and photo on it. GDPR doesn’t protect you there, either.
The bottom line is: Using a product may come with responsibilities or other concessions. You have the right to not use the product if the concessions aren’t worth it to you. You do not have the right to any product if you refuse the obligations that come with it.
This is, of course, my own opinion based on my understanding of how the world should work.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 months ago
What right is being infringed upon? Facebook is saying your options to use a private service are to pay for it, or receive targeted advertising.
You’re free to just not use any meta products like I do.
garrett@infosec.pub 2 months ago
But there’s also no ad-supported cars.
bleistift2@feddit.de 2 months ago
The do charge €10/mo like every other company does, and they add the possibility to not pay and rather see targeted advertisement. How is that worse?