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.
Removed by mod
a service that started out as a way to stalk girls turned out so bad? who knew?
They trust me, those dumb fucks. -zuckerberg
Lovingly referred to by his employees as “The Eye of Sauron”
When you bring it back around again to the current scale, so much more terrifying. Bc “they” becomes “humans” and speaking of humans as “the other” makes one what?
It ain’t that deep
“They” are the users. That makes him the owner. “They” means humans most of the time, since we don’t know any aliens
Yes, the things you shared are accurate. What does that have to do with… Zuck’s comments at the global scale would imply he is something other than human?
They don’t imply that
They just imply he owns a service most of the world uses
Removed by mod
Everyone says “they” when talking about a group that isn’t “us”
That’s just how language works
It seems like this might break the GDPR rules for consent:
Any element of inappropriate pressure or influence which could affect the outcome of that choice renders the consent invalid.
https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/
or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
I’m not a lawyer though, so maybe a legal expert can chime in.
edit: the jury is still out it seems:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/03/meta-subscription-vs-consent/
I think you’d have a hard time legally saying that they have to provide a service to users when that service is paid for by selling access to users via advertising, even if the user refuses to allow that access. It would probably qualify as “necessary for such performance”.
Having the extra option to pay to remove ads (while I think this price is ridiculously excessive) is a pretty reasonable compromise. Although it also feels kinda icky in the sense that it means you’re essentially turning privacy into a privilege for the wealthy. So I dunno, it’s a tricky issue.
I agree, but it’s not like using Meta is mandatory. You can decide not to use their services.
This point gets tricky once things become ubiquitous enough. If I did decide not to use their services (specifically Messenger), I’d be cutting myself off from communicating with 90% of my family, unfortunately. So yeah, it’s a choice that can be made… But how much of a choice is it, in practice?
Not easy, I agree.
I’ve been without any Meta services for 2 years already. In my experience, people have been more understanding regarding that than I initially imagined.
I believe that the choice can be made so I did. I still think most people can. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect the reasons anyone might have to stay.
I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.
I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.
It also kind of depends on your environment, especially where you live.
If you live in places like US where most messaging is done through SMS or iMessage and calls are done using standard phone call or FaceTime, it’s probably just “not easy” to move away from Meta services.
But when you live in places where Meta services (especially WhatsApp, where it’s the most used messaging service outside the US) are the only way to contact anyone, well, it’s virtually impossible to move away from Meta services.
If I stopped using WhatsApp at this moment, it literally means I won’t have any way to contact anyone. Very close friends and close family, maybe I can force them to install Signal, but anyone else? Probably not.
Phone call, maybe, but it’s expensive and most people don’t pick up phone anymore. SMS? Well, not only it’s expensive, even if I’m fine with paying for SMS, most people probably don’t so they won’t reply. It’s not “harder to contact anyone”, it’s literally “can’t contact anyone”.
That reminds me, though I understand the controversy of EU’s “standardized messaging protocol” regulation, I kind of wish it can work out somehow, so I can get the heck out of WhatsApp and still able to contact people.
I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.
Just to give the full context regarding my opinion: I do live in an EU country in which WhatsApp is the default messaging app and Instagram is where people my age and younger use to keep in touch with their social circle.
It’s been how you’ve said. A lot of people I cannot easily reach out. I’ve managed not to be completely isolated through Telegram.
People I’m really close to me have been kind enough to meet me there. Even some collegues from my previous work. Every time I’ve gone out with them, we’ve talked there.
Now I’m in very few family/friends chat groups (the ones I’m in, I actually care about). There’s less distractions and notifications. So at least that have been an advantage.
Edit 1: Some typos and grammar mistakes.
Edit 2: Also, I can’t say there’s no ocasional friction regarding not using Meta. As you said, I’d be amazing if they had interoperability with other messaging services without tracking me. Things would be a lot easier for me.
let’s not pretend that Telegram is any better than using WhatsApp.
just because you’re not using their service doesn’t mean they aren’t using your shadow profile
Indeed. I can’t know for sure. But the GDPR is supposed to make that illegal.
That’s a different conversation.
Necessary for performance of such service is like needing your address to ship you food or your identity data to connect you with individuals seeking to employ you. EG the info is necessary and relevant to the performance of the actual task at hand not I need all your data so I can sell it to make money. The alternative is so expansive that it would automatically authorize all possible data collection which is obviously not the intent of the law.
Techcrunch article is misunderstanding the meaning of freely given. It means not under duress and with full understanding. Paying for a service categorically doesnt contradict that.
However the odds of facebook explaining in plain english the egregious privacy breaches they do is unlikely so there’s prob a get out there anyway.
Can’t see how it breaches consent unless, as above they don’t explain what they’re doing to gather info for “personalised” ads.
Am lawyer, not gdpr /EU specialist though.
Of course, that just means you don’t see ads on Instagram/Facebook. They still collect your data, aggregate it and trade it with data brokers, so the ads you see elsewhere (not to mention prices you’re offered) will become more accurate. In fact, it’s not unlikely that the behavioural data of people who pay to opt out of being spammed with ads will be more valuable to data brokers.
Also, for those who don’t pay, the ads will get more frequent and annoying to induce them to pay. (See also: Spotify)
In fact, it’s not unlikely that the behavioural data of people who pay to opt out of being spammed with ads will be more valuable to data brokers.
True. This is why the AdNauseam extension doesn’t simply “hide” ads, but it goes out of its way to actually simulate clicks for ALL ads, causing algorithms to be unable to more accurately profile you and making the pay-per-click model fall on its face. If everyone did that, advertisers would have to pay for completely meaningless clicks making it no longer worth it to advertise this way.
Though it’s still not a solution to privacy, since it still gives some insight on your tastes by allowing them to know what websites do you frequently visit.
How much extra resources does running that consume?
Removed by mod
Anyone with more than a single brain cell should move to federated/decentralized platforms with a “Don’t pay but still have more rights than a Facebook user” approach
network effect – easy when it’s just you – but then you need to convince all your friends and family to switch over as well – and they’re not interested because it would mean convincing all their friends and family too … best you can hope for is a trust thermocline, a catastrophic event that’s more likely to leave millions of Facebook users floundering in anger than in curiosity at alternatives …
Hmm, never thought of that. I guess the reddit api fiasco was a catastrophic event.
The approach I took is organize my contacts into three categories The people that I talk to on a daily basis, people that I occasionally talk to, and people who I rarely ever talk to. For the first group (less than 10 for me), mostly close friends and families, I just bullied them to use an alternative platform like Signal until they caved in. For the second group, I recommend Signal to them but also left them with my phone number so they can text me if needed. For the third group I did nothing. Then I proceeded to delete FB Messenger off all my devices. I still log in to the web version maybe once per month to check if anyone from the third group needs to reach me or if there’s any group events going on. I did not fully get off FB but I ended up reducing 99% of my usage and 100% of the garbage in app and location tracking. To me this is good enough
Well it is easy for me as i dont have friend…
Why use a social network at all, then? /s
I like the drama
Dude you’d be surprised the amount of dumb mofos walking around you. I am 100% sure there will be some losers willing to pay that amount to use Facebook.
It’s not about the price, nobody will pay. People who use Meta doesn’t care about privacy. They will just click “accept for free” and that’s it…
It’s a way to force people to accept theire conditions even if the law force them to give us the choice.
This price is absurd, sure. Even if I trusted Meta, there’s no way I’m paying that.
Having said that, they can charge whatever they want for the service. As company, their prices are up them.
I don’t get why you (no OP specifically, but in general) put it as if you must pay or give up your rights. We can just not use Meta, as many of us already been doing.
GDPR should be there to protect and enforce informed consent. Not to remove people’s ability to decide.
Why sholuld we regulate Meta’s prices and not whatever other suscription service exists out there?
I haven’t used anything Meta-related in almost 10 years and my life has failed to disintegrate. It’s actually been lovely.
Even if you do not have a Facebook account, you are still being tracked through Ghost Profiles.
So no, you can not “just not use Meta”.
They are so ingrained in the internet, that you can not get away, no matter hard you try.
You can alleviate this by using a VPN, configure you browser to minimize fingerprinting and use NoScript which allows you to block their trackers on third party websites.
Firefox’s creators also have an optional Facebook Container add-on which will sandbox all Facebook cookies in their own Fb-only bubble, for those who still want to use it: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/facebook-container-prevent-facebook-tracking
Ok, so I should use Meta services anyway guilty-free?
I’m not claiming I’m not being tracked. But in theory, the GDPR should have made that illegal (to my understading) as I’m in the EU.
If the law is just paper anyway, then what’s the point of the discussion?
As absurd as the price may seem, that is actually about how much money they make from selling user data. Of course, given their track record I don’t feel inclined to trust this “pinkey promise” of not selling the data in some form anyways.
Do they forgot about the meaning of the world “RIGHTS”? Doesn’t feel very legal to lock users rights behind a paywall.
The thing is, using Facebook isn’t a right. They can charge for whatever, whenever, however they want. You agree to this when you sign up/access the site. You have the choice not to use it.
That’s what gets me with these comments/complaints. (Not trying to be mean). You don’t have to use facebook/Twitter/instagram etc. And the fact that people keep using these kinds of websites is beyond me, especially when they try to pull this kind of bs.
Facebook and Instagram, sure. But plenty of people are more or less forced to keep WhatsApp either because of people they want to be able to message that refuse to use anything else, or perhaps even because they need to be in some WhatsApp groups e. g. for work.
Communication platforms aren’t like web browsers or operating systems where you can switch at will to whatever else works for you, you’re more or less reliant on everyone you know also making the switch.
Exactly. Not to mention that, even if you don’t use Facebook, instagram, or WhatsApp, your data will still be hoovered up by Meta because someone who has your contact saved in your phone will inevitably allow one of those apps to see all your contacts.
Still doesn’t make it a right just because you feel forced into it lol. And yes, there are other alternatives out there, they just might not be very popular…
What I was refering when I said rights is the right to decide whether if they should use my private info or not.
It’s a private website. You give up your rights when accessing the site. If you want to keep your right to your info, don’t use the site…
I think they collect and use your information even if you don’t use the site though. Isn’t that still true?
That is true. However, the only way they’d get that info is if you made it public to begin with.
Like getting your cell phone number from a person’s contacts. You had to give that number out to begin with. You should have no expectation of privacy after that. Unless you specifically told your friend/whoever you gave it to, not to. Then that would be on them when they accepted the terms to the site, not the website itself.
(I do want to reiterate that I don’t support what these kinds of companies do at all.)
Thats not how the law works, and the law is above any corporation. At least this is still true in Europe. So if the law states that I dont need to give up any rights, then I… Dont need to give up any rights
Another thing I’ll add (I can’t edit in Artemis), I didn’t realize it was an EU article to begin with. So that was a big overlook on my part.
Yes this would only be in the US. I should’ve put that in one of my earlier comments… thanks for the clarification. Also, while we are at it, I should add do your own research too. I am just a rando and this is my general understanding of how shit works over here. Laws could even vary on state level that I’m not aware of too.
You can decide.
You can decide not to use their products.
You have a right to not use their website. It’s completely legal, as long as they’re upfront
As long as they give you an option to remove your data if you don’t agree to the terms, that’s ok
So it’s time for our EU politicians to step up then…
Hey, US, where are you in this? We need you guys to get on board with the right to privacy…
HAHAHAHA
…we can’t even get corporate money out of campaign finances…
Removed by mod
US government here, we buy the data from parties like Meta to save on the costs of surveillance and to get around laws that prevent us from spying on citizens. It’s not in our interest to legislate restrictions
deleted by creator
I feel like there is a balance to this.
- I hate all the stuff Facebook/Meta has done, but a service from a for-profit company will have a cost.
- At the same time, if you make the cost so excessive that no one will actually go for it, it’s not really an alternative and rather a loophole for the law.
What makes more sense is to set the price point around equal to the amount made / user. I REALLY doubt that they are making $168 from each person per year.
I don’t have the data with me, but would a quick and dirty
total_revenue/total_usersgive a good estimate? Assuming total_revenue doesn’t include other products like devicesin 2022, they made US$113bn from ads. They have approx 3bn users so thats about US$38 per user per year.
No one is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to run ads. But that they should be allowed to run highly specific and targeted ads is not by any means a forgone conclusion.
Television, newspapers, ads out in the “wild” and whatnot. All manage without individualizing ads. And Facebook could as well. But it’s more profitable to say to hell with our users privacy, let’s individualize the shit out of those ads.
That’s the problem.
deleted by creator
I think this will still be deceptive. These companies have proven countless times that they can’t be trusted, because every word of theirs is a lie.
They’ll just take the money and do the same.
It gets known they mine paying users too for their data? Ooopsie, it was a mistake (that we let you know about it), won’t happen again, pinky promise!deleted by creator
when the punishment is less than the profit, there’s no incentive not to deceive …
Removed by mod
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:
- …
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.
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
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!
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.
The problem in this has never been (at any point) advertising.
Advertising is problematic too but not because of privacy issues.
Imagine you would need to pay for your right to protest or free speech as an example. This is brutal.
Shh, don’t give US lawmakers ideas!
deleted by creator
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.
I’m in the US, and I want this here. Not with that price, but I think that there should be an option.
Meta, Google, etc. should calculate how much revenue they could make from me, and then charge me that amount, or something like 10% more. If I pay it, they don’t sell my data (I’ve bought an exclusive right to it). That way I’m either paying for the service by being the product, or by paying what they’d make from me. Seems fair.
How about no and my data is mine to start and end with. If they make money from me, they give me that money or the data is theirs.
Then don’t use Meta products?
If the reason why social media is free to use is because it’s subsidized or paid for by personalized ads, and they now can’t use personalized ads, I really don’t see the problem in putting it behind a paywall. Social media isn’t a public service. It’s a business. We aren’t entitled to Instagram’s free unlimited video hosting in the same way that we aren’t entitled to free movies from Netflix or free electricity from a private utility company.
Meta isn’t the only player in the network. I know how data is used but my response was to the parent comment.
