353

EU tells Meta it can't paywall privacy (www.theregister.com)

submitted 8 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The EU's Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

In October last year, the social media giant said it would be possible to pay Meta to stop Instagram or Facebook feeds of personalized ads and prevent it from using personal data for marketing for users in the EU, EEA, or Switzerland. Meta then announced a subscription model of €9.99/month on the web or €12.99/month on iOS and Android for users who did not want their personal data used for targeted advertising.

At the time, Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb, said: "EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a 'privacy fee' of up to €250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection."

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 71 points 8 months ago

Well done EU. What Facebook were trying was insane!

[-] barbara@lemmy.ml 25 points 8 months ago

Does that make the subscription model illegal and facebook has to pay the money back?

[-] slazer2au@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I am sure FB will give those who paid 1/11 of the amount back as credit on the Facebook marketplace.

Just like every other online retailer. Oh you paid $40 for something that we now have to refund you? Here is store credit for $9.76.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 8 months ago

That's oddly specific

[-] Zerush@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

The EU standard also leaves much to be desired, although it is still light years away from the (non-existent) US regulation. Now, the terms must be separated, it is legitimate for a company to finance its services, either by a monthly payment, or by placing advertisements. What is not legitimate is placing advertisements based on the user's activities and data that are recorded and sold to third parties, because this, apart from a violation of the right to privacy, is also a real risk for the user, since they have no more control over this data and how it is used or protected. Dozens of sensitive data leaks (banking, medical and others) in the past from Fakebook, Google, Amazon... clearly show this risk. It is therefore to be welcomed that the EU cuts off the tap on these companies.

[-] gilbert31@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Does anybody know if it's possible for individuals to file complaints against Meta or other services that use pay or okay models? I know that some non-profits have successfully done it, but I wonder if people could do it to as a way to pressure regulators even more.

[+] Sims@lemmy.ml -16 points 8 months ago

EU elite are the same liberal/capitalist clowns as in the US (funded by oligarchs), and they don't give a shit about EU citizens or our privacy. All capitalist corporation act the same psychotic way and should be shut down, but this is pure protectionism against US big tech.

Not that I complain about FB and other big tech platforms being hunted by EU, but it would be better if it was a genuine wish to protect their citizens against Capitalist psychopathy.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

So I will offer constructive pushback instead of inane downvotes like everyone else.

clowns

This word does literally nothing except trivialize your argument and so make it less convincing.

don't give a shit

Ditto. Makes you sound angry and irrational. Not much of an incentive to go on reading.

psychotic

psychopathy

These are medical terms. Presumably you will claim to mean them literally and not figuratively. But really, nobody is going to assume in good faith that you're a doctor or a psychologist. So, again, the result is to undermine your whole point and make it seem like empty bloviating.

Hope that helps.

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

EU elite are the same liberal/capitalist clowns as in the US (funded by oligarchs), and they don’t give a shit about EU citizens or our privacy. All capitalist corporation act the same psychotic way and should be shut down, but this is pure protectionism against US big tech.

Glad to see honest and sensible take on this.

I'm happy about the GDPR but I have my doubts about all the fines of cases versus big tech in the past. Those fines are peanuts for big tech, and where is the money of those fines going ? To protect Fortress Europe or what ? To keep paying Microsoft, Google and other cloud licenses ? It is unbelievable that some organizations in this year 2024 still come up with arguments that "there is no better offer" or "no choice" and then move parts or the complete of their IT into the cloud of USA corporations. Worrying especially given the risk that Donald Trump will be back in power. "Digital sovereignty" is a word that has been wiped from the vocabulary since years in Europe.

[+] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online -22 points 8 months ago

I honestly don't understand how what Facebook is doing a bad thing. The deal has always been that targeted advertising is how you pay for a free service.

This isn't exclusive to Facebook.

Offering an ad free experience for a subscription fee is an extremely common practice. Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 33 points 8 months ago

The deal has always been that targeted advertising is how you pay for a free service.

Always is a heck of a long time. Decades ago when ads on websites slowly became popular it was just ads. But no personalized targeting.

This isn’t exclusive to Facebook.

Offering an ad free experience for a subscription fee is an extremely common practice. Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

Extremely common practice does not make it good nor does it make it a good reason to normalize or ignore these things. For example exploitation in labor and in housing is also extremely common practice. No reason to make exploitation on the Internet seem like a fair game and expand it further. Sustainability should be a key word here in my point of view.

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago

I think there’s a difference between “generic ads we show you to support our platform” and “we’re selling your data to other people to give us revenue, so you have to offset that loss”. The latter involves your privacy around data which is the target.

[-] gilbert31@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yes, the nuance is that Facebook must offer an alternative that does not use personal data, even if it means losing some of the features compared to when you pay (either with money or authorizing them to sell your data).

[-] themurphy@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago

It's bad because the subscription fee is ridiculous high compared, and only for one reason.

And that's getting you to consent, because comprehensive data is worth more for them.

Also, the whole point is to give back users the right to their data. They don't take away Facebooks right to show ads.

Selling personal data is not equal showing ads.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online -5 points 8 months ago

I guess you didn't read the article, then. This isn't about them selling the data they gathered, only about letting you pay for an ad free experience.

[-] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

No this is also not correct. Paying for an ad free experience still seems to be valid.

What was ruled here is, that it is not considered a free choice to choose between paying money or paying with your data to access the service.

According to the EU law the user consents to harvest the digital data must be freely given.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 13 points 8 months ago

The deal has always been that ~~targeted~~ advertising is how you pay for a free service.

FTFY.

The adverts on free websites for a very long time were not targeted.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 13 points 8 months ago

They aren't attacking the business model, they are specifically attacking Facebook because it is distorting the market and destroying competition.

This isn’t exclusive to Facebook.

But this rule is all but exclusive to companies that are so big they are operating in a non-competitive market as defined by new EU regulations. Companies can still do it, Facebook and five others can't. If your platform gets so big that people can't find alternatives easily, you get on the list, and you can't do that any more either.

Offering an ad free experience for a subscription fee is an extremely common practice. Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

There is no requirement on Facebook to offer a free service. They can ask for as much money they want or not ask for money. They just can't make data harvesting mandatory for any customers. This is not a judgment of the business model, this is just acknowledging that some platforms have become so big that you can't live your life without them, so their interest to free commerce and self-determination is secondary to the basic right to privacy that all EU citizens have.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 6 points 8 months ago

You can absolutely live your life without Facebook.

[-] fluckx@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I know people who lived without Facebook for years who created an account just to get info from their kids' sports clubs. A lot of them only post data about events and stuff on the Facebook page. No newsletters or anything. Just Facebook.

They don't really have a choice. You don't want to ask other parents all the time and they won't send you an email specifically because you won't create a profile.

I fully agree with your statement. But in the case above the only alternative is to either annoy other parents every week, not send your kids to scouts camp with all their friends, or just create the profile and only look at those pages.

A lot of clubs removed their website in favour of a private Facebook page. It's unfortunate, but a reality. :(

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 points 8 months ago

The point is, not everyone can. Some businesses only have Facebook pages as their online presence. The network effects, especially in the older generations, are still very strong.

The EU had to draw the line somewhere. Facebook is over that line with the amount of people still on there.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago

You're also free to not give business to places that only have Facebook pages as their online presence.

Facebook is not a necessity. Full stop.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago

I think you don't understand the issue. The problem is not whether you can get around using Facebook in your life, the problem is whether people in general will get around using it. The numbers show they won't, so they need to be regulated in order to protect free markets.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

I have been for years. It was a massive improvement when I deleted my Facebook account.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago

Likewise. I only still have it for our neighborhood group chat and occasionally marketplace, but that's maybe a twice a year thing.

[-] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

No. If facebook wants, it can make the subscription mandatory, so only ppl who pay may access their service.

[-] shrugal@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

From what I understand the GDPR says you have to give users a real choice about the usage of their data, without any unreasonable negative repercussions. Having to pay money (at least as much as they are asking for) is such an unacceptable repercussion, no matter how FB might phrase it.

They are allowed to take money or show ads for access, but they can't couple that decision with the one about the user's data usage.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online -3 points 8 months ago

How is it unacceptable? Facebook has no onus to offer their services free of charge, and nobody is required to use Facebook.

Your options would be pay for it with cash, pay for it with advertising, or don't use the service.

It seems like the EU is trying to say Facebook is a necessary service, which is bogus.

[-] shrugal@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

pay for it with ~~advertising~~ your data

FTFY.

That part is not allowed according to the GDPR afaik, the decision about your personal data cannot be artificially linked to something else. They can absolutely show ads, but without using your data.

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024

353 points (98.9% liked)

Privacy

32492 readers

365 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS