• @harlatan@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    719 months ago

    that would be illegal too, because that information is not strictly necessary for their service - they could only opt to not provide the service in the eu

    • @JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      369 months ago

      I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

      • @ELI70@lemmy.run
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model,

        Couldn’t that claim be countered by pointing out that they already deploy a for pay approach called youtube premium?

    • @Sphks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      159 months ago

      There are multiple French websites that do this. It is legal (otherwise these websites would not do this anymore, it’s been a while).
      There is a popup asking you if you consent to get cookies (for advertisement). If you say “no”, it leads you to another popup with two choices :

      • Change your decision and accept cookies
      • Pay for a premium service without advertisements
      • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        That is just because the people who enforce the EDPB guidelines just haven’t come around to fining those websites.

        That practice is still illegal.

        Want to speed up the process? You can report those websites. The more reports the faster those get punished.

        • @Sphks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          89 months ago

          No, that’s not that clear for the moment.

          Let me explain the French case :

          • Webedia is a big company that owns most of the famous French websites (jeuxvideo.com , etc.). All these websites have cookie walls with an alternative : a paid subsription. What they say, is that the website is now accessible with subscription only. However, if you accept cookies, you’ll get a discount (free access).
          • The CNIL (a big French governemental entity) tried to forbid this. If someone reports a website, it’s for this entity to take action. There is no need to report Webedia, the CNIL knows already :-)
          • The Conseil d’Etat (juridical entity of the French gov) said that “non”, it’s OK for Webedia to use such paywalls. The CNIL can’t forbid Webedia to use them.
          • The CNIL asked the jusrists at the European level… here we are. We still don’t know.

          Here is a French website where the CNIL explains this :
          https://www.cnil.fr/fr/cookie-walls-la-cnil-publie-des-premiers-criteres-devaluation

          • @harlatan@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            Well, seems like my gdpr knowledge got too rusty. at least to me its an interesting topic to actualise

      • @MrPozor@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        99 months ago

        Same in Germany and Switzerland. I just close the site immediately when I see this kind of blackmailing. Or use 12ft.io if I absolutely want to read the article.