EU tells Meta it can't paywall privacy(theregister.com)
theregister.com
EU tells Meta it can't paywall privacy
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/18/eu_meta_subscription_privacy/
137 comments
I never accepted the new terms in the Instagram app, it keeps asking again every now and then but you can get around it for a while and use the app. I'm very curious whether that means they are using my personal data for targeted ads or not, but I also don't remember the last time I saw an ad (maybe became blind to them)
Paywalling privacy makes it look a bit like extortion: "nice data you have there, would be too bad if someone were to exploit that data. We could protect you...for a fee."
So then don't use the product? It's free, and your data is the price currently.
This simple solution does not help, unfortunately.
(This is how Facebook collects data on you even if you don’t have an account) https://www.vox.com/2018/4/20/17254312/facebook-shadow-profi...
(This is how Facebook collects data on you even if you don’t have an account) https://www.vox.com/2018/4/20/17254312/facebook-shadow-profi...
Create a problem, sell the solution.
Gooooooood.
Now it's time to target the myriad of newspapers that have all chosen to go that same path - and even if you pay, you still get heaps of tracking crap.
Now it's time to target the myriad of newspapers that have all chosen to go that same path - and even if you pay, you still get heaps of tracking crap.
Turn off JavaScript. That works most of the time for me.
The burden to fight this should not be shifter to end user. It's like saying buy a gun to ensure your safety. It's police job to ensure public safety.
A good compromise might be to shift the burden onto the browser. Browsers are supposed to act as the User's Agent, not as an enabler for web companies to do whatever they want. If browsers were actually doing their jobs, they would be rendering only what the user wants and dropping the rest into /dev/null. You wouldn't need dozens of extensions just to make the web sane.
Say what now? Public safety and personal safety are two very distinct concepts that often coincided. But not always.
That still seems like a very unequal application of law. Newspapers -> disable JS, Meta -> even if you consent, it's illegal
Rather, use NoScript and use its allowlist as needed to fix poorly made websites.
Great! It's been a long time coming, now chase after everyone else doing the same exact thing.
[deleted]
John Gruber’s take should make folks think twice about what’s going on here:
“”” What makes this all the more outrageous is that many major publishers in the EU use this exact same “pay or OK” model to achieve GDPR compliance — and none offer a free alternative with non-targeted ads. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Der Spiegel to offer free access without ads. Christ, they don’t even let you look at their homepage without paying or consenting to targeted ads. And Spotify quite literally brags about its ad targeting. But Spotify is an EU company, so of course it wasn’t designated as a “gatekeeper” by the protection racketeers running the European Commission.
They’re not saying “pay or OK” is illegal. They’re saying it’s illegal only if you’re a big company from outside the EU with a very popular platform. “””
https://daringfireball.net/2024/04/edpb_meta_pay_or_ok
“”” What makes this all the more outrageous is that many major publishers in the EU use this exact same “pay or OK” model to achieve GDPR compliance — and none offer a free alternative with non-targeted ads. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Der Spiegel to offer free access without ads. Christ, they don’t even let you look at their homepage without paying or consenting to targeted ads. And Spotify quite literally brags about its ad targeting. But Spotify is an EU company, so of course it wasn’t designated as a “gatekeeper” by the protection racketeers running the European Commission.
They’re not saying “pay or OK” is illegal. They’re saying it’s illegal only if you’re a big company from outside the EU with a very popular platform. “””
https://daringfireball.net/2024/04/edpb_meta_pay_or_ok
I put little stock in Gruber’s takes. He should stick to the Apple rumours. If he has a problem with DerSpiegel he should make a complaint. Not only that, but this ruling is setting a precedent - it doesn’t only apply to Meta but instead applies to the consent or pay model generally. Only time will tell the consequences of the ruling.
> it doesn’t only apply to Meta but instead applies to the consent or pay model generally.
No it doesn't. He points out, correctly, that there are EU companies that are doing so now, aren't being threatened, and will probably continue to be permitted to do so.
No it doesn't. He points out, correctly, that there are EU companies that are doing so now, aren't being threatened, and will probably continue to be permitted to do so.
Doesn't the EU law have a size requirement for the userbase before it ratchets up? that seems like a reasonable way to apply this law without unduly burdening small companies.
The problem is that it penalizes success and keeps companies small. If your company grows from small to large using personalized ads, you'll suddenly find it subject to this law, and then it has to change its business model. That's incredibly disruptive and discourages growth.
There is no company size threshold here. This is GDPR related. You and Gruber are both mixing up GDPR with the EU's Digital Markets Act. Digital Markets is the one which has a "gatekeeper" concept tied to company size and market power.
Nobody is confused here. The point is, there's not a single European company that is impacted by the "pay or OK" demand, and it's a fair question as to whether there ever will be.
He could have checked whether Spotify is hunted by data protection authorities before he claimed they don't.
I wonder why he didn't.
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2023/imy-issue...
I wonder why he didn't.
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2023/imy-issue...
He didn't say that Spotify had never been investigated or found liable for misbehavior. He said that Spotify is permitted (as of now) to continue to target its ads and content, which is true.
Read again, he's very clear in his claim that the GDPR is a 'protection racket' aimed at corporations outside of the EU.
It's obvious that he is running some kind of grift relying on the audience being ignorant of EU law and its application.
It's obvious that he is running some kind of grift relying on the audience being ignorant of EU law and its application.
Why did they take so long to act against Facebook? People here were complaining about how little teeth it had against the big players, until they moved against the big players. Now they're claiming how little teeth it has against the long tail. Their time will come too.
As far as I can tell, the EDBP opinion[1] is a general one, and not Meta/FB specific (which are mentioned only in one footnote).
edit: it is actually for Large Online Platforms, which probably won't include newspapers.
[1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion...
edit: it is actually for Large Online Platforms, which probably won't include newspapers.
[1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion...
The fact that the EU commission doesn't have the political leverage to protect its citizens against the greed of European corporations (because member states oppose that) is a pity, but we should still rejoice to see they at least have the leverage against the worst offenders because they don't have enough political power in the EU to protect their malpractices.
Meta's revenue last year was $135 billion. Der Spiegel's revenue rounds to $0 billion.
They don't have resources to directly take on every company. Obviously they should be going after the biggest offenders first. Smaller companies will get in line once the precedent is set.
They don't have resources to directly take on every company. Obviously they should be going after the biggest offenders first. Smaller companies will get in line once the precedent is set.
They explicitly added an exception later on for newspapers (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38114111)
[deleted]
Well, if they made the bizarrely uneven application of law explicit, it's all cool...
No. It is just as illegal for newspapers.
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
this article is a year old, but heise hasn't changed their model. so what is it going to take for that to change?
i have been arguing against this for some time and i am glad to finally see some support, but more work is needed.
i have been arguing against this for some time and i am glad to finally see some support, but more work is needed.
It's going to take the heavy hammer of the European Commission to fall on them with a significant fine before they do anything about it.
Unfortunately, with so many misbehaving players, that seems to take some time.. But from the fines I read about, once it falls, it falls painfully. Their choice.
Unfortunately, with so many misbehaving players, that seems to take some time.. But from the fines I read about, once it falls, it falls painfully. Their choice.
Sorry, I don't see in that thread where the exception is coming from. Can you be more explicit?
[deleted]
This is a pretty bad take, borderline disingenuous. Spotify is certainly not a "gatekeeper" -- I don't think Spotify is comparable to Facebook by any measure really. Is Der Spiegel a "large online platform?" I suspect not.
It's actually quite simple: they have to not violate the rights of their users. They proposed legislation explicitly targets large online platforms that offer users no choice but to pay to uphold their rights. It's practically extortion.
It's actually quite simple: they have to not violate the rights of their users. They proposed legislation explicitly targets large online platforms that offer users no choice but to pay to uphold their rights. It's practically extortion.
Also, he's lying about Spotify not being treated like Facebook in that case (for data protection).
Other people here try the same idiotic take on Rgpd 'protectionism' but do not even think to look at active Rgpd cases. This guy is worse though, directly talking about Spotify and didn't bother to check, if you cannot be trusted to do basic research on your arguments, on your own blog, you shouldn't be listened to.
Other people here try the same idiotic take on Rgpd 'protectionism' but do not even think to look at active Rgpd cases. This guy is worse though, directly talking about Spotify and didn't bother to check, if you cannot be trusted to do basic research on your arguments, on your own blog, you shouldn't be listened to.
What is he specifically saying that is false?
> They’re not saying “pay or OK” is illegal. They’re saying it’s illegal only if you’re a big company from outside the EU with a very popular platform
Spotify case:https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2023/imy-issue...
Spotify case:https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2023/imy-issue...
That case has nothing to do with the "pay or OK" question. The key issue there was "how Spotify handles the right for individuals to access their personal data."
Gruber has been wildly out of touch for years now.
He's claiming remote work doesn't work when he's worked remotely his whole life.
He's raging against the EU even though it gets us concrete results that we would've never had otherwise, the very least being Emulators and Game Streaming apps.
He has a lot of "old man yelling at cloud" energy.
He's claiming remote work doesn't work when he's worked remotely his whole life.
He's raging against the EU even though it gets us concrete results that we would've never had otherwise, the very least being Emulators and Game Streaming apps.
He has a lot of "old man yelling at cloud" energy.
I'm ramping up my ublock origin usage by a lot at this point. I didn't know that with the annoyances list you can remove most of the pooup blockers (cookies, paywalls, newsletters)
Facebook is the scum of the earth, but you don't HAVE to use Facebook. If you don't like their terms don't use it. I can see a case where you must be allowed to end the contract with Facebook and have them delete your data or whatever, but I can not figure out why people think that Facebook is some publicly owned entity. Should I be able to go to my neighbors house and say they don't get to set the rules on the tools I borrow from them? Their my neighbors tools, they don't even have to let me use them.
Facebook isn't paywalling privacy unless they are actively spying on you without you using their products, which would be a completely different situation.
Or if they were outright lying to you about what data they collect and what they do with it, again though completely different situation.
They are paywalling their product, you know, like how walmart "paywalls" milk.
Facebook isn't paywalling privacy unless they are actively spying on you without you using their products, which would be a completely different situation.
Or if they were outright lying to you about what data they collect and what they do with it, again though completely different situation.
They are paywalling their product, you know, like how walmart "paywalls" milk.
> They are paywalling their product, you know, like how walmart "paywalls" milk.
So you can take milk from walmart without paying if you agree to tracking? Analogies are not arguments.
So you can take milk from walmart without paying if you agree to tracking? Analogies are not arguments.
The EU should be more consise and tell everyone not to paywall security.
Puting people at risk only to subsequently charge them protection money
is a textbook example of a criminal enterprise.
It would be grate indeed, but the commission has limited power, and if member states (at least a qualified majority of member states) aren't onboard with such a move, then the commission is helpless. At least member states aren't interesting in protecting American megacorps like they protect their own businesses, and that's why that happens.
That last sentence is not entirely true :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40025198
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40025198
You’re thinking of racketeering, which this is not.
Putting all your personal data you've put on Facebook, and all the relationship you have there behind a paywall really is racketeering.
Just make "personalized" advertising flat out illegal without opt-in --- due to the fact it is built around privacy violation.
Problem solved. The EU is just trying to dance around doing this.
Problem solved. The EU is just trying to dance around doing this.
It is illegal as per the GDPR.
The problem is that GDPR enforcement is severely lacking, even in Facebook's case where there is plenty of evidence of bad faith as opposed to legitimate mistakes.
(please don't bother posting that "enforcement tracker" link - what matters is not the absolute count/amount of fines but said metrics relative to the total amount of breaches and/or estimated profit earned from them)
The problem is that GDPR enforcement is severely lacking, even in Facebook's case where there is plenty of evidence of bad faith as opposed to legitimate mistakes.
(please don't bother posting that "enforcement tracker" link - what matters is not the absolute count/amount of fines but said metrics relative to the total amount of breaches and/or estimated profit earned from them)
It is illegal as per the GDPR.
Then they should simply tell Meta. There should be no need to debate or dance around privacy paywalls.
But they obviously haven't done this.
Then they should simply tell Meta. There should be no need to debate or dance around privacy paywalls.
But they obviously haven't done this.
GDPR enforcement is flawed. The regulator (Irish DPC) that has the power to do so is incompetent and/or corrupt (they have prior history of being "nice" to Meta despite sufficient evidence of bad faith).
This escalation to the EPDB is yet another attempt to get the Irish DPC to do what they were supposed to do in the first place.
There is little political will to fix this however, and data protection regulators are generally useless in every country (maybe not to the level of the DPC, but still). Here's a breakdown of EU-wide cases showing that over 50% of them are stuck for 2+ years: https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa
This escalation to the EPDB is yet another attempt to get the Irish DPC to do what they were supposed to do in the first place.
There is little political will to fix this however, and data protection regulators are generally useless in every country (maybe not to the level of the DPC, but still). Here's a breakdown of EU-wide cases showing that over 50% of them are stuck for 2+ years: https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa
>> It is illegal as per the GDPR.
> Then they should simply tell Meta
Umm, who's the they in this?
Call me naive, but I'd assumed corporations were expected to comply with applicable laws without having to be told to.
> Then they should simply tell Meta
Umm, who's the they in this?
Call me naive, but I'd assumed corporations were expected to comply with applicable laws without having to be told to.
> Just make advertising flat out illegal
Agreed.
Agreed.
I'm not against "context sensitive" advertising. It can even be beneficial at times.
If I specifically express a need or interest in a particular product --- for example by doing a search, some ads are not unreasonable.
What is blatantly unreasonable and just plain dumb are these ads following me all over the internet on totally unrelated web sites for weeks or months --- long after I have made a purchase and no longer have any need.
In a great many cases, "personalized" ads are totally ineffective and waste the advertiser's money while being nothing but a nuisance to the consumer --- squandering his time, attention and communication bandwidth and violating his privacy.
Allow those who disagree to "opt in". This should be fair enough but the ad industry knows full well that there would be very few takers.
If I specifically express a need or interest in a particular product --- for example by doing a search, some ads are not unreasonable.
What is blatantly unreasonable and just plain dumb are these ads following me all over the internet on totally unrelated web sites for weeks or months --- long after I have made a purchase and no longer have any need.
In a great many cases, "personalized" ads are totally ineffective and waste the advertiser's money while being nothing but a nuisance to the consumer --- squandering his time, attention and communication bandwidth and violating his privacy.
Allow those who disagree to "opt in". This should be fair enough but the ad industry knows full well that there would be very few takers.
And context sensitive advertising is nice and easy tbh.
Affiliate links to professional tools or paint in a decoration/woodwork blog goes a long way. Probably if you're big you might want stuff a bit more complex, but for hacker it's quite good.
The electronic blog I follow only have affiliate links as ads, and they seems to do quite well.
Affiliate links to professional tools or paint in a decoration/woodwork blog goes a long way. Probably if you're big you might want stuff a bit more complex, but for hacker it's quite good.
The electronic blog I follow only have affiliate links as ads, and they seems to do quite well.
To me this is the most egregious opinion that came out of GDPR (I've seen in argued in other GDPR threads). That a company is required to provide a service even at a loss.
A company should have every right to deny service. Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising. If they lose money by serving a user content because they denied targeted advertising, they should be able to deny them service or have them pay up. They're just legislating into law the Meta (and others) have to provide a service at a loss for a growing number of users.
A company should have every right to deny service. Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising. If they lose money by serving a user content because they denied targeted advertising, they should be able to deny them service or have them pay up. They're just legislating into law the Meta (and others) have to provide a service at a loss for a growing number of users.
That’s not the case at all. If they can’t serve EU users profitably without violating their privacy they have every right to pull out of the market. If you can’t run your business without violating the rights of the citizens then you can’t do business.
> If they can’t serve EU users profitably without violating their privacy they have every right to pull out of the market.
The article clearly mentions how they are only 'violating the rights' if the user chooses to agree with it rather than paying a subscription. It's a trade.
Why do you think people are entitled to consume free content with no strings attached?
The article clearly mentions how they are only 'violating the rights' if the user chooses to agree with it rather than paying a subscription. It's a trade.
Why do you think people are entitled to consume free content with no strings attached?
Apply the same logic to any other illegal rights violation that companies could do to citizens.
Facebook has 3 options available:
1. Only provide their service to paying customers, no free EU version.
2. Don’t provide the service in the EU at all
3. Provide their service to paying customers, and a free version that doesnt’t violate the law.
What they’re currently doing is “provide their service to paying customers, and a free version that violates the users rights” — that is not a legitimate option, regardless of which rights are being violated or laws are being broken.
You don’t just get to break laws or violate rights because you’d make less money otherwise. You also don’t have to provide the service for free, but they seem to still want to do that.
Facebook has 3 options available:
1. Only provide their service to paying customers, no free EU version.
2. Don’t provide the service in the EU at all
3. Provide their service to paying customers, and a free version that doesnt’t violate the law.
What they’re currently doing is “provide their service to paying customers, and a free version that violates the users rights” — that is not a legitimate option, regardless of which rights are being violated or laws are being broken.
You don’t just get to break laws or violate rights because you’d make less money otherwise. You also don’t have to provide the service for free, but they seem to still want to do that.
Privacy is an important right like any other. It cant simply be traded away. I may agree to work for pennies in your sweat shop, but the state prevents that being a legal trade.
Don't I agree to give up my privacy everytime I step outside?
No. In many places in Europe (at least in my country) it is illegal to record specific people (and use the footage for anything other than completely personal use). People have a reasonable expectation of some privacy while out in public spaces in most circumstances.
Now, if you're at a public concert or any type of large gathering, you have less of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Now, if you're at a public concert or any type of large gathering, you have less of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Privacy isn't binary, you can give up some but not all. After all you have a bathroom door in your private home.
Scale matters. Someone walking past you on the street, or recording everything you do are two very different cases even if all the info is there in both cases. It's not only the action that matters but also the intent and the consequences. Other laws take this into consideration, why not privacy laws?
People and systems are not the same and usually have different purposes. You give up a little privacy in to a person, they don't pay attention, forget, the info is trapped in their head to be converted in vague words. You give up a lot of privacy to a computer, they remember everything accurately and connect different data points across time, space, and systems.
The EU just has a difference stance on privacy, it's as simple as that. You just got used to be disadvantaged by these rules and it looks abnormal when others don't see it that way.
Scale matters. Someone walking past you on the street, or recording everything you do are two very different cases even if all the info is there in both cases. It's not only the action that matters but also the intent and the consequences. Other laws take this into consideration, why not privacy laws?
People and systems are not the same and usually have different purposes. You give up a little privacy in to a person, they don't pay attention, forget, the info is trapped in their head to be converted in vague words. You give up a lot of privacy to a computer, they remember everything accurately and connect different data points across time, space, and systems.
The EU just has a difference stance on privacy, it's as simple as that. You just got used to be disadvantaged by these rules and it looks abnormal when others don't see it that way.
The EU does not allow you to trade away your privacy rights in exchange for free goods or services.
It 100% does allow exactly that
https://www.spiegel.de/
https://www.spiegel.de/
Meta had $135 billion in revenue last year vs Der Spiegel's $0.3 billion.
Obviously, the largest offenders are going to be the top priority for limited enforcement resources.
Obviously, the largest offenders are going to be the top priority for limited enforcement resources.
Yea that user is just wrong, is though this opinion from the privacy board (who knows if it matters at all) is that pay or consent should be illegal.
It is not. It is limited to the context of Large Online Platforms, as defined (iirc) in the DSA.
I believe the edpb will later publish guidelines on consent or pay for other companies, which will impact many news agencies.
I believe the edpb will later publish guidelines on consent or pay for other companies, which will impact many news agencies.
If there are strings attached, it is not free. The currency change. EU simply think privacy is not a valid currency in this case.
They can just offer the paid service, and remove the free one. That should show the EU, right?
That does seem to be the issue, pay or consent is illegal, but just pay pretty much has to be legal since that's how a lot of services already work.
terhechte(1)
This is sibling to the complaints many in the US like to voice against minimum wage (that it makes it impossible for some businesses to stay afloat).
The obvious counterargument imho is, that no-one owes these people a profitable business. If you can't do business without exploiting people or destroying their privacy, you can't do business. Someone else will come along and fill that niche without the exploitation or destruction of privacy, and they deserve our custom more than these other entities. And if no-one is able to fill it, that's OK, too. Not every possible idea needs to be profitable.
The obvious counterargument imho is, that no-one owes these people a profitable business. If you can't do business without exploiting people or destroying their privacy, you can't do business. Someone else will come along and fill that niche without the exploitation or destruction of privacy, and they deserve our custom more than these other entities. And if no-one is able to fill it, that's OK, too. Not every possible idea needs to be profitable.
I would argue it’s the opposite: if your business model is unsustainable while observing the law, then you don’t have a business. Close and pull out.
> A company should have every right to deny service.
Pretty sure that's legal and Meta could do it if they wanted to.
Pretty sure that's legal and Meta could do it if they wanted to.
> > A company should have every right to deny service.
> Pretty sure that's legal and Meta could do it if they wanted to.
It isn't entirely that blank & white. They can't deny service for refusing to let them do something you have a legal right to refuse to let them do. They can refuse service for refusing to pay, but the relevant laws don't allow giving up your privacy rights to be equated to paying. The law doesn't allow you to “pay” for things with your human rights (of which it considers privacy one).
This leads to “pay or no service” being okie dokie, but “pay or give up right or no service” (or just “give up right or no service”) not being.
This partly comes from a desire not to create a new underclass, with some able to pay to maintain their rights and the others effectively losing them because they can't afford other options. There would be a two class system anyway (those that can pay and those that don't have the service), but not having access to facebook is not seen as threatening like not having one of your human rights (as defined by relevant law) is.
> Pretty sure that's legal and Meta could do it if they wanted to.
It isn't entirely that blank & white. They can't deny service for refusing to let them do something you have a legal right to refuse to let them do. They can refuse service for refusing to pay, but the relevant laws don't allow giving up your privacy rights to be equated to paying. The law doesn't allow you to “pay” for things with your human rights (of which it considers privacy one).
This leads to “pay or no service” being okie dokie, but “pay or give up right or no service” (or just “give up right or no service”) not being.
This partly comes from a desire not to create a new underclass, with some able to pay to maintain their rights and the others effectively losing them because they can't afford other options. There would be a two class system anyway (those that can pay and those that don't have the service), but not having access to facebook is not seen as threatening like not having one of your human rights (as defined by relevant law) is.
a desire not to create a new underclass, with some able to pay to maintain their rights and the others effectively losing them because they can't afford other options
this is the key argument why pay for privacy is a problem. unfortunately, given that for now we must assume that all ads are tracking people and are thus violating users privacy, this means that any ad supported service that offers ad free service against pay including youtube and netfix are in violation of this.
solving this will be difficult. we need some way to ensure that ads are non-tracking. but i don't know how to do that.
this is the key argument why pay for privacy is a problem. unfortunately, given that for now we must assume that all ads are tracking people and are thus violating users privacy, this means that any ad supported service that offers ad free service against pay including youtube and netfix are in violation of this.
solving this will be difficult. we need some way to ensure that ads are non-tracking. but i don't know how to do that.
> this means that any ad supported service that offers ad free service against pay including youtube and netfix are in violation of this.
Actually not. Those ad free services are still tracking you. There is no payment for privacy, just payment for no adverts. The data they record while you are using the paid ad-free service can still be used elsewhere, including by that service if you later stop paying to remove the ads. This is bad from a privacy PoV, but at least it is equally bad for all from a rights PoV (rather than creating classes of haves & have nots).
There are points where ads and privacy are completely separate issues. If they were separate issues generally than I'd allow many more ads but block the stalky ads/services. Not all online ads are stalky (though the vast majority are), and many ad-free sites/apps/services are still stalky (directly, or via free services that they use such as many SaaS analytics options).
Actually not. Those ad free services are still tracking you. There is no payment for privacy, just payment for no adverts. The data they record while you are using the paid ad-free service can still be used elsewhere, including by that service if you later stop paying to remove the ads. This is bad from a privacy PoV, but at least it is equally bad for all from a rights PoV (rather than creating classes of haves & have nots).
There are points where ads and privacy are completely separate issues. If they were separate issues generally than I'd allow many more ads but block the stalky ads/services. Not all online ads are stalky (though the vast majority are), and many ad-free sites/apps/services are still stalky (directly, or via free services that they use such as many SaaS analytics options).
well, yes, but they are only tracking what content i watch or read, they are not what ads i see and whether i click on them (since there are no ads). so it is slightly different. and this tracking of views also happens equally in the free version.
free = track content views + track ad views and clicks.
paid = track content views only
the privacy implications of tracking content are different from the privacy implications of tracking ads, especially because ads can track across different content sites in ways that pure content tracking on eg youtube or netflix can not.
the problem is that the ad tracking gets shared with the advertisers whereas content tracking mostly doesn't get shared as far as i can tell.
imagine how people would react if it came out that youtube or netflix would share which content people watch. we just had a discussion about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39808994
free = track content views + track ad views and clicks.
paid = track content views only
the privacy implications of tracking content are different from the privacy implications of tracking ads, especially because ads can track across different content sites in ways that pure content tracking on eg youtube or netflix can not.
the problem is that the ad tracking gets shared with the advertisers whereas content tracking mostly doesn't get shared as far as i can tell.
imagine how people would react if it came out that youtube or netflix would share which content people watch. we just had a discussion about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39808994
> paid = track content views only
Perhaps less relevant to the likes of Netlfix, but youtube are certainly tracking much more than just what you watch on youtube even if you pay for no ads. They will be recording details of all the sites you visit that embed their videos, and so forth.
And while they aren't going to be sharing exact data in any way, that doesn't make business sense, I'm sure there is some sharing of indirect tracking data (cohort flags & such), as I've seen activity on youtube apparently affect what I get hawked in recommended links elsewhere.
Perhaps less relevant to the likes of Netlfix, but youtube are certainly tracking much more than just what you watch on youtube even if you pay for no ads. They will be recording details of all the sites you visit that embed their videos, and so forth.
And while they aren't going to be sharing exact data in any way, that doesn't make business sense, I'm sure there is some sharing of indirect tracking data (cohort flags & such), as I've seen activity on youtube apparently affect what I get hawked in recommended links elsewhere.
The law does allow you to sell your rights, it happens in all countries in the world, and where the line is drawn is completely circumstantial and unprincipled. Consider what it means to pay someone for their silence, or conversely to pay someone to say things.
What I meant (which I should've clarified) is Meta can pull out of EU/any markets and shut down its servers legally. Not provide some part of its service in a new form.
> A company should have every right to deny service
Plenty of utility companies are already being forced to provide service. As the EDPB opinion says, a lot of big tech is
> decisive for participation in social life or access to professional networks, even more so in the presence of lock-in or network effects
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising
I don't think that such a large difference is rational. "Untargeted" advertising can still be based on the content being viewed, just not on surveilling the viewer.
> If they lose money by serving a user content because they denied targeted advertising, they should be able to deny them service or have them pay up.
As I understand it the opinion does not categorically rule this out
> Controllers should ensure that the fee is not such as to inhibit data subjects from making a genuine choice
That is why NOYB also focuses[0] on the fact the the fee is disproportionate:
> The current average revenue for programmatic advertising in the EU is € [1.41] per user - across all websites per month [...] visiting the top 100 websites can already cost more than € [1500] per year if you do not consent to tracking
---
[0] https://noyb.eu/en/statement-edpb-pay-or-okay-opinion, https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...
Plenty of utility companies are already being forced to provide service. As the EDPB opinion says, a lot of big tech is
> decisive for participation in social life or access to professional networks, even more so in the presence of lock-in or network effects
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising
I don't think that such a large difference is rational. "Untargeted" advertising can still be based on the content being viewed, just not on surveilling the viewer.
> If they lose money by serving a user content because they denied targeted advertising, they should be able to deny them service or have them pay up.
As I understand it the opinion does not categorically rule this out
> Controllers should ensure that the fee is not such as to inhibit data subjects from making a genuine choice
That is why NOYB also focuses[0] on the fact the the fee is disproportionate:
> The current average revenue for programmatic advertising in the EU is € [1.41] per user - across all websites per month [...] visiting the top 100 websites can already cost more than € [1500] per year if you do not consent to tracking
---
[0] https://noyb.eu/en/statement-edpb-pay-or-okay-opinion, https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/...
Meta is free to close shop (in the EU) if it's not worth it to them. Not all business have the right to exist.
Even further: No business has the right to exist.
If your business can't make money because you have to respect the rights and freedoms of your customers, then close your shop up. If your business can't make money because you have to pay your workers enough to live, then close up shop. If your business can't make money because you have to abide the laws of the countries in which you operate, then close up shop.
This bizarre entitlement that entrepreneurs have, especially but far from exclusively in the tech space, that just because they want their business to exist and make money that they therefore have this strange innate right to transact and draw profit, even when providing subpar service, paying subpar wages, cutting corners in the work they do, etc. etc. has been entertained for far too long. The way I was always taught it, markets select for firms that provide service well, at competitive cost, and business is a RISK because of those things. Sometimes risks don't pay off.
If your business can't make money because you have to respect the rights and freedoms of your customers, then close your shop up. If your business can't make money because you have to pay your workers enough to live, then close up shop. If your business can't make money because you have to abide the laws of the countries in which you operate, then close up shop.
This bizarre entitlement that entrepreneurs have, especially but far from exclusively in the tech space, that just because they want their business to exist and make money that they therefore have this strange innate right to transact and draw profit, even when providing subpar service, paying subpar wages, cutting corners in the work they do, etc. etc. has been entertained for far too long. The way I was always taught it, markets select for firms that provide service well, at competitive cost, and business is a RISK because of those things. Sometimes risks don't pay off.
"Business", "entrepeneurs" and legal persons are not the same.
You have it backwards. None of these tech companies are candid about how they monetize. I'd imagine that all but the bottom 10% of users at this point understand what is going on. So the problem isn't entitled corporations, the problem is users are willingly using these services.
It would be way more fruitful if you redirected your anger towards the users who continue to just shrug and hand over their data. Or the ever growing contingent of people who are ad-blocking everything anyway, eating the fruits of garden while keeping their wallets taped shut. For them, the system as it is now is best.
It would be way more fruitful if you redirected your anger towards the users who continue to just shrug and hand over their data. Or the ever growing contingent of people who are ad-blocking everything anyway, eating the fruits of garden while keeping their wallets taped shut. For them, the system as it is now is best.
It depends which side you think has the responsibility to be candid and informed, the business or the consumer. While I'm all for informed consumers making good decisions, I believe there is also room to acknowledge the sheer amount of shit a consumer, today, must be informed about in order to properly operate in all the markets they are more or less required to. And with that in mind, I err more on the side that a business should be transparent about it's pricing and policies because the business is looking to make a profit. Informing your customer about your product used to be a very normal thing. A lot of sales training in the days of yore was about assessing customer needs and tailoring products to meet them. Now it seems to be a mad dash to get as many as you possibly can as quickly as you possibly can with as little work as possible.
I have a strong dislike of the notion that the only way for customers to avoid being taken for a ride is that they have to know things about the businesses they are interacting with. I ask you: why should we permit this? Why do customers need to be experts on how their data is used to avoid it being done, or worse still, have to pay for the privilege of not being surveilled? What is the gain in that decision for larger society?
I have a strong dislike of the notion that the only way for customers to avoid being taken for a ride is that they have to know things about the businesses they are interacting with. I ask you: why should we permit this? Why do customers need to be experts on how their data is used to avoid it being done, or worse still, have to pay for the privilege of not being surveilled? What is the gain in that decision for larger society?
I get your argument, but like I said, pretty much everyone is well aware of data collection and targeted advertising. And they still use those services.
Just like people are aware that Ubereats is a pile of fees on top of higher menu prices...and they still just use anyway to avoid having to call the restaurant to deliver or pickup themselves.
Just like people are aware that Ubereats is a pile of fees on top of higher menu prices...and they still just use anyway to avoid having to call the restaurant to deliver or pickup themselves.
everyone is well aware of data collection and targeted advertising
they may be aware of it happening, but they are not aware of the consequences, risks and dangers. they have no idea how that data can be misused. identity-theft, scams, stalking, harassment, doxxing, leaking of private information (your daughter is pregnant, gambling or other controversial activities) and who knows what else that can be enabled with access to this data.
they may be aware of it happening, but they are not aware of the consequences, risks and dangers. they have no idea how that data can be misused. identity-theft, scams, stalking, harassment, doxxing, leaking of private information (your daughter is pregnant, gambling or other controversial activities) and who knows what else that can be enabled with access to this data.
> I get your argument, but like I said, pretty much everyone is well aware of data collection and targeted advertising. And they still use those services.
I mean, sure. I don't think that's inherently wrong. All the parties making decisions in this transaction didn't do so at the same time, and I feel the temporal context is important as it amounts to a large scale "conversation" if you will between the public and Facebook:
- Facebook initially launched it's product some time ago and offered few if any features for ad targeting.
- As it grew in technical complexity and aptitude, as an organization, it created and refined more precise targeting measures which required more user data to operate, which incentivized the collection and categorization of more user data
- Users despite enjoying the product are (rightfully I feel) uncomfortable with the idea of being surveilled, but this doesn't necessarily mean they are prepared to stop using the product. Facebook has engineered their product to be at least somewhat addictive, and even that aside, social media is not totally without uses and enjoyable aspects.
- Users then instead of divesting from the product are asking their leaders to legislate rules about how much their data can be used in this way. Their leaders have responded with legislation mandating transparency and establishing rules about user's data.
- Facebook then responded basically saying "if you don't want us to use your data for this purpose, you need to pay X amount of money instead to cover the ad revenue we cannot make"
- Users individually make this choice, but also the leaders whom have been charged with working on this issue come forth and say, "you cannot paywall a user's right to privacy"
- The proverbial ball is now back in Facebook's court, it can either divest from it's EU users, or fall back on un-targeted advertising which makes them less money, or it can make the subscription fee give more back to the users and make it a more compelling offer where it can operate outside of being basically a protection racket.
I summarize all this to point out that users are not limited to simply using the product or not using the product. The EU suffers less from the malaise I feel has infected the United States, where we've forgotten that the letter of the law is not simply for punishment, but also to shape the society we want to see built, including incentivizing and disincentivizing behaviors of private organizations via regulation. In this case, users do want the product, but they are altering instead via public policy what is permitted to happen when they choose to use that product. That is a fair action on that part and Facebook's response, IMO, amounts to corporate whining. This is a reality of the business they've chosen to engage in: complying with regulations is not a new concept, and it is not unfair either: regulations are always subject to change at the whims of those in power, for better or worse.
I mean, sure. I don't think that's inherently wrong. All the parties making decisions in this transaction didn't do so at the same time, and I feel the temporal context is important as it amounts to a large scale "conversation" if you will between the public and Facebook:
- Facebook initially launched it's product some time ago and offered few if any features for ad targeting.
- As it grew in technical complexity and aptitude, as an organization, it created and refined more precise targeting measures which required more user data to operate, which incentivized the collection and categorization of more user data
- Users despite enjoying the product are (rightfully I feel) uncomfortable with the idea of being surveilled, but this doesn't necessarily mean they are prepared to stop using the product. Facebook has engineered their product to be at least somewhat addictive, and even that aside, social media is not totally without uses and enjoyable aspects.
- Users then instead of divesting from the product are asking their leaders to legislate rules about how much their data can be used in this way. Their leaders have responded with legislation mandating transparency and establishing rules about user's data.
- Facebook then responded basically saying "if you don't want us to use your data for this purpose, you need to pay X amount of money instead to cover the ad revenue we cannot make"
- Users individually make this choice, but also the leaders whom have been charged with working on this issue come forth and say, "you cannot paywall a user's right to privacy"
- The proverbial ball is now back in Facebook's court, it can either divest from it's EU users, or fall back on un-targeted advertising which makes them less money, or it can make the subscription fee give more back to the users and make it a more compelling offer where it can operate outside of being basically a protection racket.
I summarize all this to point out that users are not limited to simply using the product or not using the product. The EU suffers less from the malaise I feel has infected the United States, where we've forgotten that the letter of the law is not simply for punishment, but also to shape the society we want to see built, including incentivizing and disincentivizing behaviors of private organizations via regulation. In this case, users do want the product, but they are altering instead via public policy what is permitted to happen when they choose to use that product. That is a fair action on that part and Facebook's response, IMO, amounts to corporate whining. This is a reality of the business they've chosen to engage in: complying with regulations is not a new concept, and it is not unfair either: regulations are always subject to change at the whims of those in power, for better or worse.
It’s ironic that you’re talking about entitlement when the EU is more or less telling meta to provide its services for free.
Given that many EU countries are part of the 14 eyes alliance, these laws seem more like hypocritical protectionist legislation. They don’t care about the privacy of EU citizens. They only care about the survival of ancient EU companies. Ie why aren’t EU publishers subject to the same terms? Why can they offer targeted ads in lieu of payment?
EU protectionism is also one of the reasons why the US is growing tired of continuing to subsidize the EU’s defense.
Given that many EU countries are part of the 14 eyes alliance, these laws seem more like hypocritical protectionist legislation. They don’t care about the privacy of EU citizens. They only care about the survival of ancient EU companies. Ie why aren’t EU publishers subject to the same terms? Why can they offer targeted ads in lieu of payment?
EU protectionism is also one of the reasons why the US is growing tired of continuing to subsidize the EU’s defense.
Meta (at the time Facebook) decided to provide it's services for free at the time of inception of the product. The EU did not force their hand and they're free to stop providing services to EU users at a time of their choosing.
I find it rather amusing how the notion that a business that can't make money in a given region is so wholly incompatible with your thought processes that you just jump immediately to "the EU is trying to get them to operate for free!" Like just... what if Facebook just wasn't in Europe? Like... that would be fine. The planet would continue spinning, Facebook would still make shit tons of money. It's honestly kind of wild how committed you are to this one shitty product remaining available in this one region.
I find it rather amusing how the notion that a business that can't make money in a given region is so wholly incompatible with your thought processes that you just jump immediately to "the EU is trying to get them to operate for free!" Like just... what if Facebook just wasn't in Europe? Like... that would be fine. The planet would continue spinning, Facebook would still make shit tons of money. It's honestly kind of wild how committed you are to this one shitty product remaining available in this one region.
Yes, it’s this kind of thinking that makes it clear that the EU and the US are no longer allies. It goes both ways.
Also if it was such shitty product, why are law makers forced legislate it to death? One would assume that EU users would simply stop using it.
Also if it was such shitty product, why are law makers forced legislate it to death? One would assume that EU users would simply stop using it.
> It’s ironic that you’re talking about entitlement when the EU is more or less telling meta to provide its services for free.
No. Facebook can paywall their services.
What they condition the use of their services while respecting user's privacy to payments. It is like EU fighting against a criminal organization that offer "protection services" if you don't want them to burn your shop.
No. Facebook can paywall their services.
What they condition the use of their services while respecting user's privacy to payments. It is like EU fighting against a criminal organization that offer "protection services" if you don't want them to burn your shop.
That analogy makes no sense as a retort to why EU publishers don’t have to abide by the same rules. EU publishers also have n free articles per month. It’s still just protectionism at the end of the day.
I think the key is the EU's Data Protection Board can't probably fight all abuse at the same time and target first the biggest (in term of audience) first.
If they don’t bother enforcing the privacy rules on domestic companies, it’s just thinly veiled protectionism of dinosaur media companies.
> That a company is required to provide a service even at a loss.
They don't
> A company should have every right to deny service.
They do.
>They're just legislating into law the Meta (and others) have to provide a service at a loss for a growing number of users.
They don't.
---
You can't just do something illegal just because you are offering a paid version where you don't do the illegal thing.
They don't
> A company should have every right to deny service.
They do.
>They're just legislating into law the Meta (and others) have to provide a service at a loss for a growing number of users.
They don't.
---
You can't just do something illegal just because you are offering a paid version where you don't do the illegal thing.
Consent to having your privacy violated has to be actual genuine consent. Charging a privacy fee up to €250 a year I don't think can be reasonably interpreted as genuine consent.
Then what is a reasonable price? They could define it. Though it does sound like in the article the opinion from the board that any price is too much.
I also have no idea how they came up with that number, since earlier in the article they mention 9.99 and 12.99 a month.
I also have no idea how they came up with that number, since earlier in the article they mention 9.99 and 12.99 a month.
> Then what is a reasonable price? They could define it.
Not without creating a situation where only those with at least a certain amount of money can keep their rights.
> I also have no idea how they came up with that number [€250]
Same. If their user numbers and published finances are to be believed then they make (IIRC) ~$25 per average EU user per year (closer to $75 for a US user) so €250 is a massive uplift. Unless of course they are lying about their active user numbers, or at least being incredibly disingenuous about how they calculate those numbers, which many believe is the case, in which case the amount made per active user is higher.
Even the €9.99/mo seems far too high if they aren't being deceitful about their active user numbers, which suggests deliberately trying to discourage take-up because being able to stalk for their advertisers is more convenient and likely more profitable (or that they are being deceitful about their active user numbers!).
Not without creating a situation where only those with at least a certain amount of money can keep their rights.
> I also have no idea how they came up with that number [€250]
Same. If their user numbers and published finances are to be believed then they make (IIRC) ~$25 per average EU user per year (closer to $75 for a US user) so €250 is a massive uplift. Unless of course they are lying about their active user numbers, or at least being incredibly disingenuous about how they calculate those numbers, which many believe is the case, in which case the amount made per active user is higher.
Even the €9.99/mo seems far too high if they aren't being deceitful about their active user numbers, which suggests deliberately trying to discourage take-up because being able to stalk for their advertisers is more convenient and likely more profitable (or that they are being deceitful about their active user numbers!).
> A company should have every right to deny service.
Sure. They can pull out of the EU if they can't follow the rules.
> If they lose money by serving a user content
Btw, don't the users who generate said content have a right to be paid for it? Social networking doesn't generate shit, it's their users that do the work for them.
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising.
But then they'll be able to drop the targeting infrastructure and reduce their hosting costs by at least two orders of magnitude :)
Sure. They can pull out of the EU if they can't follow the rules.
> If they lose money by serving a user content
Btw, don't the users who generate said content have a right to be paid for it? Social networking doesn't generate shit, it's their users that do the work for them.
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising.
But then they'll be able to drop the targeting infrastructure and reduce their hosting costs by at least two orders of magnitude :)
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising.
Perhaps if this kind of targeting is banned, the advertising budgets will be spent of untargeted advertising instead, raising the prices of non-targeted advertising?
Perhaps advertisers (at least those with useful products) will find that less invasive targeting is good enough, such advertising e.g. knitting-related products next to knitting-related content?
Perhaps if this kind of targeting is banned, the advertising budgets will be spent of untargeted advertising instead, raising the prices of non-targeted advertising?
Perhaps advertisers (at least those with useful products) will find that less invasive targeting is good enough, such advertising e.g. knitting-related products next to knitting-related content?
The key here is that Meta is not just “A company.” Meta is effectively the communication infrastructure of a vast swathe of EU citizens. The EU has decided they have strong opinions about the administration of this infrastructure.
Since this came up, it would be nice if they also had strong opinions (and followup actions) about a related infrastructure :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26843068
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26843068
They have the right to stop operating in the legal zone where it isn't profitable for them.
I think this only bans consent or pay. Nothing in the edpb opinion prevents just charging (we can call it pay or pay).
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The problem isn't that they charge at all but that they charge too much. The court ruled that a "reasonable" charge can be asked but at an ARPU of $45, it seems Meta is asking users who value their privacy for twice as much money ($120/yr) as the average user gives them in ad revenue.
How does the court decide what's "reasonable"? What does "reasonable" even mean? Isn't it up to consumers and the company to find the equilibrium price? Does the court have some arcane economic formulas I'm unaware of?
> Isn't it up to consumers and the company to find the equilibrium price?
Remember, Facebook’s users are not the consumers. They are the sources of surveillance capitalism’s crucial surplus: the objects of a technologically advanced and increasingly inescapable raw-material-extraction operation. Surveillance capitalism’s actual customers are the enterprises that trade in its markets for future behavior.
Remember, Facebook’s users are not the consumers. They are the sources of surveillance capitalism’s crucial surplus: the objects of a technologically advanced and increasingly inescapable raw-material-extraction operation. Surveillance capitalism’s actual customers are the enterprises that trade in its markets for future behavior.
Who is paying the $120/yr? Advertisers or consumers?
Recall that the fee was only implemented to comply with the EU regulation and ostensibly to make up for the revenue not gained from selling behavioral information. If you want to test who Facebook’s real customers are, look at whose interests they put first.
Why does this matter? Users and Meta mutually agree to this. What kind of nanny state prevents grown adults from entering a contact that hands nobody else?
The “choice” for users amounts to “let us track you, or completely disconnect from commerce and communication.” That is not a choice, that is extortion. Especially when you add a literal protection fee to it.
I think we are going to go back to paywalls and subscriptions for everything.
Providers and users have been unable to strike a balance, with users being entitled to free content and providers being shameless about 3rd party data sharing. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, where intrusive advertising perpetuates ad-blocking and ad-blocking perpetuates more intrusive advertising.
In my opinion the best solution would be something like what Brave is perusing, a seamless integrated micropayment system where site owners can charge penny fractions in order to view content. Yes, I know, I can easily think of all the downsides to this system.
The core problem is that no one has figured out a good monetization method for internet content for 30 years. It's either pay with credit card or pay with personal data.
Providers and users have been unable to strike a balance, with users being entitled to free content and providers being shameless about 3rd party data sharing. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, where intrusive advertising perpetuates ad-blocking and ad-blocking perpetuates more intrusive advertising.
In my opinion the best solution would be something like what Brave is perusing, a seamless integrated micropayment system where site owners can charge penny fractions in order to view content. Yes, I know, I can easily think of all the downsides to this system.
The core problem is that no one has figured out a good monetization method for internet content for 30 years. It's either pay with credit card or pay with personal data.
Everything commercial. Good riddance I say, the Web has become too commercial.
Also, patronage-style funding does work (even if the crowdsourced one somewhat fragile against deplatforming and not exempt of its own issues).
Also, patronage-style funding does work (even if the crowdsourced one somewhat fragile against deplatforming and not exempt of its own issues).
> That a company is required to provide a service even at a loss.
No. The company is required to provide any services it provides without breaking the law, which includes privacy legislation. If they can't operate without making a loss without breaking the law, then they are not forced to make a loss, they can always just stop service.
> A company should have every right to deny service.
They do, but not on the basis of refusing to consent to a reduction of your privacy rights as defined and protected by the law. If they should be able to break piracy laws in order to be able to provide service, what other laws / human rights / other should they be able to break too? If a delivery company can't turn a profit without being faster by ignoring road safety laws, should we allow them to break those laws in order to keep offering their services?
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising.
If stalky advertising did not exist, non-stalky advertising would attract higher prices. The difference in success rate between targetted and untargeted advertising is incredibly small (the difference is orders of magnitude smaller than that pricing differential) in real terms so those doing the advertising would not miss out much. Advertising as a whole, targetted or not, is not nearly as successful as the industry would have us believe. This is why so much effort is made to try make some adverts seem as much as possible like personal recommendations instead of paid promotions, and so much effort goes into other forms of astroturfing (fake reviews, paying to have bad ratings dropped, etc.).
The advertising industry is conning its own customers to an extent as well as us, cleverly abusing statistics to make their services look as worth paying for as possible. This is not unlike parts of the spam industry: those buying access to send to mailing lists are conned into believing a higher rate of return is possible than is actually likely. The advertising/spam industry gets paid, the advertiser pays in money, we “pay” in irritation.
No. The company is required to provide any services it provides without breaking the law, which includes privacy legislation. If they can't operate without making a loss without breaking the law, then they are not forced to make a loss, they can always just stop service.
> A company should have every right to deny service.
They do, but not on the basis of refusing to consent to a reduction of your privacy rights as defined and protected by the law. If they should be able to break piracy laws in order to be able to provide service, what other laws / human rights / other should they be able to break too? If a delivery company can't turn a profit without being faster by ignoring road safety laws, should we allow them to break those laws in order to keep offering their services?
> Untargeted advertising pays 90+% less than targeted advertising.
If stalky advertising did not exist, non-stalky advertising would attract higher prices. The difference in success rate between targetted and untargeted advertising is incredibly small (the difference is orders of magnitude smaller than that pricing differential) in real terms so those doing the advertising would not miss out much. Advertising as a whole, targetted or not, is not nearly as successful as the industry would have us believe. This is why so much effort is made to try make some adverts seem as much as possible like personal recommendations instead of paid promotions, and so much effort goes into other forms of astroturfing (fake reviews, paying to have bad ratings dropped, etc.).
The advertising industry is conning its own customers to an extent as well as us, cleverly abusing statistics to make their services look as worth paying for as possible. This is not unlike parts of the spam industry: those buying access to send to mailing lists are conned into believing a higher rate of return is possible than is actually likely. The advertising/spam industry gets paid, the advertiser pays in money, we “pay” in irritation.
"That a company is required to provide a service even at a loss."
That's the conclusion some privacy folks came to after the GDPR came to life. Those predictions from 10y ago are not materializing.
That's the conclusion some privacy folks came to after the GDPR came to life. Those predictions from 10y ago are not materializing.
woo boy defining meta products as “providing a service” is a stretch. They’re absurdly thin wrappers around a platform whose only purpose is to hoover up your data and sell it.
Hit them where it hurts, don't click on ad/affiliate links. The lesser the validation of ads resulting in sales, the lesser the value of advertising on these platforms and consequently, lesser the value of data collection for targeted ads. Click-starve these fuckers.
I've only ever clicked on ads by accident. Does anybody actually click through and buy? The few products I came across through ads, I googled for them at a later date, and I can't even think of any that I ended up buying.
Yes, it's common that people don't really distinguish between ads and other things that show up on their screens. Many also hook up their accounts to shady companies that quiz them and tell them what kind of wizard they are because they think it's fun to have the screen tell them little stories where they are involved.
You pay for impressions.