The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta plans to move to a “Pay for your Rights” model, where EU users will have to pay $ 168 a year (€ 160 a year) if they don’t agree to give up their fundamental right to privacy on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. History has shown that Meta’s regulator, the Irish DPC, is likely to agree to any way that Meta can bypass the GDPR. However, the company may also be able to use six words from a recent Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling to support its approach.

  • @dimath@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The company:

    • We can provide you a free for you service paid by advertising.

    Users:

    • No, I want privacy.

    The company:

    • Ok, paid service then.

    Users:

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      281 year ago

      I would feel a lot better about it if the price was anything close to how much they actually make from people’s data. Something like $30 per year according to Facebook themselves, in 2019.

      But yeah, the notion that people should be entitled to all these online services completely free of charge while also not allowing it to be paid for through advertising is ludicrous.

      • @elvith@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        I don’t mind paying a fair fee for online services, if that means I get some/more privacy, because of no/less/non-tracking ads. I have a few donations set up for some services that I use regularly. I also made a paid account on some commercial services „just because they’re ad free“ even if their free tier would suffice for my usage.

        But how are those ads gonna pay them ~16€/month/user on these services? It just to deter people from using this option. Heck I can get a decent vServer and self host several services for that price! No way Meta pays/earns that much per user!

      • @Hexagon@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        You could have advertising without creepy tracking surveillance. Contextual ads, based only on the content of the current page and nothing else. Still relevant, still makes money

      • @anothermember@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I use adblocking software to block surveillance by ad networks, which is needed for security. I would have no problem with a website hosting ads that were more like television ads that were just hosted locally and didn’t have user tracking - but Meta aren’t offering that option. So while it might be ludicrous to expect online service free of charge without advertising, it’s not ludicrous to expect/demand it without spyware.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem in this has never been (at any point) advertising.

      Advertising is problematic too but not because of privacy issues.

    • Pablo
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Imagine you would need to pay for your right to protest or free speech as an example. This is brutal.

    • Melody Fwygon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      The act of paying for something directly violates user privacy too. Modern businesses use Trust-based National Currency. They are REQUIRED to do so.

      Thank you modern anti-money-laundering laws. /s

      The best privacy defense is “Nobody Knows Who”. Any company that profits explicitly from asking “Who?” is a problem.

      The best software asks “Who?” as little as reasonably possible. Companies in general would profit significantly more from software as a service if they did not have to bear the burden of answering “Who?” every time the government asks, or bear the fears of being tied up in legal proceedings for ages for simply upholding the right of privacy for another.

      Facebook and it’s other related social networks is horrendous software. It’s company is actively exploiting “Who?”. Advertisements are a largely unwanted fact of life and people are beginning to draw lines and demand ‘moderation of Advertisement placement, levels and density’ as well as ‘more privacy respecting’ businesses and services.

      TL;DR: If your business model is to invade people’s privacy to sell advertising and you charge exorbitant prices to “respect my privacy” in any shape, form or manner; then you have no morals, ethics or scruples and you should fully expect to be censured and shunned by people who value those things in the companies they do business with.