It has taken almost a year to figure this out when it already was blatantly obvious when they implemented it. With that price tag, it was more blackmail
I mean, it is shitty, but nobody forces anyone to participate. Half the people on Facebook noping the fuck out completely and deleteing their accounts would make everyone's life easier and happier
Oh yeah! I dropped out of all META platforms back in November when they implemented the Pay or OK requirement.
I can still have an opinion on it though. I am not against ads. I had just opted out of targeted ads. With the Pay or OK though they forced me to have to accept targeted ads.
Even if i paid the crazy amount they were asking (in my case the equivalent of 3 Netflix subs) they could still track me and suggest content , even from commercial accounts. So i opted out of META instead
facebook and instagram? I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Spain right now practically all newspapers/digital media have copied that model and you either accept cookies or pay
Also in Italy, but I think once the data protection agencies will get on it, it will be forbidden. It will take some time, but there is no way that's a legitimate use of consent.
Yes, surely, but there is an underlying problem for this entire system, there is no economically viable alternative to the use of data for advertising sales, without that all those websites cease to be profitable.I don't think this is good for anyone.
Public financing of the press, newspapers stopping being garbage and selling subscriptions like they have always done, pay per article (cents), donations. Just some ideas of economically viable alternatives. There are good niche newspapers which survive with such models, it's not like I am making it up.
I would say the opposite: advertising alone is not sustainable for the press because it creates wrong incentives (grab attention, clicks). This is why 90% of newspapers have the same garbage, short, generic articles. This is why you get rage baits, fake news etc. too, to some extent. So yes, you get websites online, but you get no information...
I believe you’re allowed to run ads on free tiers and offer to remove them by paying. You’re not however allowed to track people without their consent, thus you can’t force personalised ads on users, and say that the only way to get rid of the privacy invasion is to pony up.
The biggest Czech website (Seznam.cz) recently changed their policy and now force you to choose between: free tier with personalised ads or paid tier with anonymous ads. Yes, you're reading it right, even if you pay, it doesn't get rid of ads, they just stop tracking you. I have no idea whether it's legal but the EU should definitely take a look.
Edit: Ok, I think they only offer you this choice when you're using an account. I tried it in a private tab and it seems I can decline personalized ads there. Does that make it legal? If yes, then they're some sneaky bastards.
IANAL, but: Gdpr only says that they cannot require you to sell your data to use a service. It does not say anything about paying with money. So this seems legal to me
the Facebook case: DMA/ digital markets act. This case is only regarding the choice between personalisation or paying to access the service. Only for really big patients deemed to be gatekeepers. There are only five at the moment: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
showing ads that are personalized, or any other things where they use information about you: Gdpr. You have to allow it.
showing you ads that are not personalized: completely legal. Netflix does the same I think. Also Amazon prime.
The GDPR says that if you use consent as the legal basis for processing data, such consent must be free. This means that there cannot be consequences if you give or not give the consent. If there are, then the consent is not free anymore. Paying money for a service is absolutely legal, obviously, what probably is not legal is extracting your consent by offering you a discount (which is the flipside of "pay to avoid tracking").
I just wanted to specify a bit, not that you said anything incorrect.
Which will work great until corporations implement systems that force it onto us. Microsoft building it into the operating system. Mozilla acquiring advertising companies and implementing AI bullshit. Google edging closer to having a monopoly on browsers.
Main issue comes from GDPR. When one uses the consent basis for collecting and using information it has to be a free choice. Thus one can't offer "Pay us and we collect less information about you". Hence "pay or consent" is blatantly illegal. Showing ads in generic? You don't need consent. That consent is "I vote with my browser address bar". Thing just is nobody anymore wants to use non tracked ads.....
So in this case DMA 5(2) is just basically re-enforcement and emphasis of previous GDPR principle. from verge
“exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”
from the regulation
The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
(a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
(b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
(c) cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
(d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,
unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
surprise 2016/679 is..... GDPR. So yeah it's new violation, but pretty much it is "Gatekeepers are under extra additional scrutiny for GDPR stuff. You violate, we can charge you for both GDPR and DMA violation, plus with some extra rules and explicity for DMA".
I think technically already GDPR bans combining without permission, since GDPR demands permission for every use case for consent based processing. There must be consent for processing.... combining is processing, needs consent. However this is interpretation of the general principle of GDPR. It's just that DMA makes it explicit "oh these specific processing, yeah these are processing that need consent per GDPR". Plus it also rules them out of trying to argue "justified interest" legal basis of processing case of the business. Explicitly ruling "these type of processing don't fall under justified interest for these companies, these are only and explicitly per consent type actions".
The European Commission writes in a preliminary ruling that the “pay or consent” advertising model that launched last year for Facebook and Instagram users runs afoul of Article 5(2) of the DMA by not giving users a third option that uses less data for ad targeting but is still free to use.
Regulators found in their investigation that Meta gives users a “binary choice” that forces them to either choose to pay a monthly subscription fee to get the ad-free version of Facebook and Instagram or consent to the ad-supported version.
Where Meta runs afoul of its rules, it says, is by not letting users opt for a free version that “uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads’ based service” and by not allowing them to “exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”
“Our preliminary view is that Meta’s advertising model fails to comply with the Digital Markets Act,” wrote Margrethe Vestager, who leads the region’s competition policy.
“Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA,” Meta spokesperson Matthew Pollard told The Verge in an email.
The commission asserted last week that Apple’s App Store “steering” policies don’t allow sufficient competition.
The original article contains 390 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 46%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
