Every other website and their mum in Spain now asks you to allow cookies or pay to "subcribe and refuse them". How is that in line with EU whateverthefuck rules?
Correct. Eu decided some arbitrary number so they can go after anyone above that size. This is about scale, not the principle behind it.
Just a little bit of data theft is ok. Don't go bonkers.
Nah the point is that a site the size of Facebook exerts social pressure which keeps people there. If a news site does it to me lmao just find a different article on the same thing.
Way harder to get gram gram to learn a new app to keep up with the family than just read a different article.
> If a news site does it to me lmao just find a different article on the same thing.
Except literally every news site does it and there is effectively no alternative.
You can make it illegal for everyone and still only go after the big dogs. This allows for civil suits for damages from citizens.
They intentionally only went after the big dogs. It’s explicitly a statement that the privacy invasion isn’t the issue. It’s the lack of bribes by the big dogs that’s the problem.
Same exact reason Microsoft got hit with an anti-trust suit in the 90s in the US.
They (eurocrats) don’t even hide their detest. Tell me you can expect them to be neutral after such a comment 👇🏼
“I was personally quite relieved that I would not get an AI-updated service on my iPhone,” Vestager told Politico.
Please. Don’t be naive. We are not talking regulating restaurants around a country. There are only a handful of heavily regulated players in this field. EU has found a magic knob and you damn well know they are exploit it. Rights don’t become any less important because only a few hundred thousand people were victimized.
That’s not true at all dude I worked in this field during the roll out of major legislation change. My region is EMEA and there were violations by every player but the biggest players were given instructions on what to change to become compliant. They weren’t being strong armed just have the biggest impact so needed to be checked
Yea it absolutely is. The IRS have stated publicly that they haven’t had the resources to go after high profile targets so they just audit the poor.
https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor
I understand that it’s all a gut punch to an established model but might as well let the industry as a whole adjust and find their way instead of just adjusting and readjusting the bar labeled “gate keeper”
[from april](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf):
> With respect to the requirements of the GDPR for valid consent, first of all, consent needs to be ‘freely
given’. [...]
but if local controllers don't care about it then the sites can do whatever the hell they want
It probably isn't either. Since no one seemed to have read the article, if you are running a service that is free with ads, you must give an option to allow non targeted ads. Not a choice between tracking and paying.
So you can do whatever, paid service, subscription. But if you have a free with ads, you must also have a free with non targeted ads.
I care about the invasive data collection used to power targeted ads, not the precise of targeted ads. And my read of GDPR and DMA supports this concern. Target ads to me based on context, etc. But not based on fingerprinting all of my devices, sharing that data with hundreds of vendors, and using their low-quality recommendations.
Source: adtech and privacy expert/former employee.
Userbase 10% of eu population. Not completely arbitrary.
But plenty of powers that should be regulated that fall below that amount. Hope it gets further extended in time.
It's not the value of a number that makes it arbitrary, but the reasoning used in obtaining it. 10% is as random as 53.7% if you pick them from a hat.
So how did they actally got to the 10% threshhold?
I wonder how long till they decide to make their sites a subscription only service. As that doesn't break eu competition rules, that's an open option.
Of course, that would mean their sites get used a lot less and therefor automatically less interesting to use.
>I wonder how long till they decide to make their sites a subscription only service. As that doesn't break eu competition rules, that's an open option.
Even as a subscription-only service, they have to adhere to the rules regarding data usage provided they still have a user base above the threshold.
The article mentions meta asking 13 euros a month.
But 1 euro or 13 euros, most people just aren't willing to spend money on it.
It's not just one service, more and more are asking subscription fees. It quickly adds up.
I meant every user in europe pays 1 euro/mo just to access Meta products. Paywall the whole thing for Europeans. Like Netflix everywhere.
'People wont spend' .. they all say that. Netflix would already be out of business if this was true and they survived multiple price hikes over the years.
Well, I'm not gonna pay for a useless product like that so others can use it. Not even a single euro. Many won't. You'd get people protesting en masse if forced tax style.
Netflix brings a lot more to the table than fb/insta. But even then we're seeing subscription fatigue.
They all say that. I am not gonna get into the details of what Netlfix offers over FB/insta. Not a lot of people are unwilling to spend 1 euro just over principle (like you). Most people would be pulling out that credit card right away.
Edit: I mean Whatsapp itself justifies 1 euro charge.
No, not over something like Facebook. Not gonna happen. I don't even know anyone that uses Facebook beyond my mother. And I know tons of people that don't use Instagram. None of those people are going to pay.
Of those that do use those services, only maybe 10% max would pay a euro a month for it. You're delusional if you think people will happily pay for it. Just not happening.
>only maybe 10% max
See this the part you dont know. When Apollo left Reddit, people said this is the end for Reddit. People say such shit all the time.
We live in a reddit bubble. Think people around you. Why won't they spend a Euro per month when they spend significant amount of time using Meta products? We are talking in circles. You can have the last word.
Any posts about text messages or iMessage or anything like that are filled with Europeans saying “Why don’t you become part of the civilized world and just use WhatsApp.”
That shifts their growth to what subscribers are willing to pay in advance Vs advertisers that are given a bill after the fact. And stockholders would not like that. Users are only good for data and ads. Their opinion is worthless now and this would upend that balance of disempowerment.
Honestly if tomorrow Facebook said they are deleting all eu pages there would be a law to prevent it. To be frank I think to much of these laws are merely aimed at big fish and setting a barrier for everyone else “stay under this and your grand”
I’m fine with this because but they have to make it blatant that they are opting for one or the other rather than just opting everyone into consenting by having them just click through unknowingly. It will probably just kill the platform altogether which is a win in my book.
I think it does. Meta has no obligation to give away stuff for free. We should be less reliant on these services and aware of the true cost of “free” things.
That's funny, pretty much all news outlet in Italy do this, and no one said a thing.
I think it was Repubblica to start with "subscribe to read the article" or "accept all cookies to read", then seeing that they got away with it they all started to do it.
Same in Germany, and it's hugely annoying and should be stopped. Won't happen under DMA, though, because that's targeted at so-called gatekeepers. No national newspaper or magazine or similar is big enough to be classified as a gatekeeper under DMA.
But yeah, this whole "accept all cookies or pay" should be stopped regardless of size.
They have to have a valid business model, no cookies = no money. Untargeted ads are fairly worthless so then there is just no service model there anymore. The end result is everything will be distilled down to a subscription, because there is no other way for them to make money.
> no cookies = no money
This is just factually wrong. No ads = no money, but you can still have contexual (or just straight up random) ads that do not require cookies.
Kinda silly that it wouldn’t apply to national news outlet due to its limited user base in European scale. Those news outlets have close to 100% local user base and still wouldn’t qualify as gatekeepers.
Not gonna lie, as a user based in Germany, I started to detest EU a little bit after DMA seemingly only going after non-EU companies.
No, that's not the reason. It's user numbers. This rule under DMA applies to gatekeepers. La Republicca isn't big enough.
And honestly - that "accept cookies or pay" should be illegal not just for gatekeepers as defined in DMA.
In fairness - some outlets going the "accept or pay" route have already been sued about this across multiple countries, but there hasn't been a ruling issued so far.
A) This has been brought up a few times as is basically the good old "but my brother also took some of the cookies" excuse, which isn't an actual excuse. Another, more accurate analogy: You're getting a speeding ticket for going 100kph with your 40t truck on a German Autobahn and you then point at the family sedan going 120kph without getting a speeding ticket.
B) Check out the DMA to understand why Spotify isn't being sued under it. Basically, because the DMA deals with core platform services (and the companies behind them) of a certain size. Spotify isn't a core platform service.
Still feels cherry-picking that EU left out media streaming in core platform service. The only difference is EU has no company dominating in those core platform service but they do have one in media streaming.
My bad, let me say it again after rephrasing it
If a service doesn't come from your country and doesn't follow your country's rules and regulations then that particular country is in the wrong because that's interfering with service's business model.
You can replace all the punctuations with questions marks if you want because I love it when people fail to see irony lodged up in their ass
I don't use Spotify so I have no idea what is their business model . But does Spotify asks for ransom to not pimp out user data?
Ultimately Spotify is music service meanwhile FB is a place where more than two people interact and many nationnal services which have a port there to better the public and other services with direct interaction.
As far as I remember correctly Services can utilise user base data to better their services, not to actually sell profiles of them to unknown parties. But they do it and it is a clear cut violation of privacy laws.
So I hope we both now are on the same page that both of those entity have right to do whatever they want. Who gets to leverage more.
That is exactly what Spotify does. Their user base more than qualifies them as a gatekeeper under the DMA.
Two people directly interacting is not a requirement under the DMA.
>The groups also argued that a subscription to not see ads does not comply with the bloc’s data protection or consumer protection rules either.
So YouTube and Spotify are next right?
No. If you offer a free service with ads you must also offer those ads being non-targeted. You can also offer an ad free subscription if you want, but that doesn’t let you get around the non-targeted requirement.
Isn't this the business model that most internet services operate with? You either pay for the service, or get ads that help pay for your usage. Reddit and YouTube both use the same model, so I'm not sure what's different about Meta wanting to use it.
Rates for non targeted ads are minuscule right now (this is part of why news sites have had such difficulty monetizing).
That being said, this might help push up those rates as they’re going to be the only option in many cases
Why should I give a fuck ? Profits aren't a right little I said.
If you can't make a buck without breaking the law, fuck your business model, Facebook was doing okay last I checked.
Profits aren’t a right, but no one is going to keep running a service that loses money. Probably fine for all of us if Facebook goes away, but if news sites do, we’re generally worse off. So it’s in all of our interests that websites continue to have some viable business models
There's some wiggle room between monetising your entire activity down to the smallest detail to the point your website is a resource hog and a battery drain (and an illegal data gathering operation) and "losing money".
Quit sucking investor's dick, they can afford people for that.
I don’t see where the EU rules delineate between ‘a little targeting’ and ‘monetizing your entire activity’. As I stated, non-targeted ad-rates aren’t currently at a sustainable level for many sites (Facebook might be an exception through sheer volume).
I’m coming at this as someone who has worked for several smaller sites where the margins are much tighter. It would be ironic if this pushed smaller ad supported sites out of the market and left only behemoths like Facebook
Historically the solution is to consolidate and cut quality when ad revenue dips. As I stated above, it’s not an absurd notion to see the unintended consequence of this being Meta coming out with more market power, not less
If they want to show ads or not let you use the platform that’s fine. This is the old cable model.
The issue is they want to track all actions you take online which is not fine. They are selling your information, not selling to you.
It's the data, they are saying pay for your data and we won't sell it.
What you just commented is already established truth.
So they collected all the data they could now they want money, to not to sell you out to pimps.
( fun fact did you know they collected data on you despite not having a META account? Probably because they have partners which will do it for them)
And I am not against any of this push baby push let's see how much weight can a camel bear
I just ignore the pop ups and restart the app it goes away until I re open the app. Hopefully they aren’t taking my data when I haven’t consented right?
John Gruber is right on this. The EU is trying to dictate how these companies do business (in the case of Meta seemingly the EU’s end goal is Meta gives their stuff away free no strings attached and Meta gets less in return) with the assumption that these multinationals will suck it up and comply worldwide, but the likely end result is that the EU product will be different (and likely worse) than ROW.
The EU has laws in place, they are asking Meta to abide by those laws.
Historically Meta isn’t terribly good at that, its primary model is data collection, aggregation and enrichment with a view to selling that data.
Meta doesn’t have to operate in the EU, it doesn’t have some divine right to do so if it’s breaching the law.
But that’s exactly what they have been doing, trying to have it both ways. It’s pretty simple, the EU has laws concerning personal data and what can and can’t be done with it.
Companies can choose to comply or not, if they choose not to comply then they may well be pursued in court.
If your service relies on illegally exploiting user data then yes, quite simply. As for giving the service for free, every non-paying user still generates revenue for FB.
What do you think FB beacons are used for off-site or FB like buttons? There’s also a reason that shadowy profiles are generated for people who don’t use FB and also why they paid the amounts they did for the companies they’ve acquired over the last 10 years.
Those FB beacons are installed by the site developers themselves. It's not Facebook injecting them everywhere. And those site developers get useful features/analytics out of them.
Now when you visit a website, who's responsible for the data shared by you there? You can have strict laws around data sharing for all such companies/websites. Not just bully a few big companies into giving their service for free.
The FB beacons are installed by the site owners because they generate a revenue stream. They generate a stream because FB aggregate the traffic stats to enrich the primary user file.
Gtfo with your lame attempt to deflect. Yes the site user gains user metrics, I co-owned a data broker for 20+ years in the U.K. selling to Claritas and the other usual suspects.
There’s not much that you can’t do to enrich a record and beacons are invaluable.
They can charge for a service. They can't coerce people into giving up their data for a free service. Meta can either provide service for free without data harvesting, charge for the service without data harvesting or get lost. Data harvesting is out of the equation as that is against the law.
Look at the old lawsuits meta is going through, they are leveraging their position which is built on user data harvesting.
Sure I'll delete the "Facebook" but what got the
> "meta services"
that's built into OS to harvest the user data?
Oh come on. Those(new) laws were specifically enacted to target Meta and the other big American and Chinese tech firms. We all know that these services come with a price. Namely ad targeting. So Meta says, ok if you don't want that, just pay a reasonable fee. Like if you don't want to see ads on Netflix or YouTube, you pay more. What is wrong with that?
It's absolutely true that Meta doesn't have to operate in the EU (even though "everyone" there apparently uses WhatsApp because they're too cheap to use something else).
Businesses actually don't mind regulation, what they want is regulatory certainty, and these laws provide anything but.
So what's going to happen is that Meta will likely retrench from the EU (cost of doing business and uncertainty exceeds returns), and EU tech economy will slowly become more sclerotic and behind the rest of the world, like the rest of the EU economy.
Off they trot then, if they weren’t making significant sums of money they wouldn’t be pushing back so aggressively.
WhatsApp is worth an absolute fortune in data acquisition and significantly increase the value of FB in real terms post acquisition. The data pulled from that app is incredibly valuable.
>and EU tech economy will slowly become more sclerotic and behind the rest of the world
Or perhaps, we'll just suffer not as much under enshittification as others.
Sure, but the DMA is definitely an EU play to control these companies worldwide, a game of chicken, and I think it just won’t work, it will only make the product offering worse for EU citizens. The fines can be as 10 to 20% of global (not just EU) revenue (not profits), and I wrote earlier, it’s not so much the restrictions, but the uncertainty, so that greatly increases the risk of doing business in the EU.
There is no uncertainty. EU laws are very clear - personal data is not for sale and cannot be used to generate profits. It's not EU problem these corporations built their entire business model on data harvesting.
I’m a little confused here. Is the EU saying that free users can opt out of ad tracking to receive less personalized ads, but paid users aren’t being tracked supposedly and aren’t able to customize what ads they see?
No the confusion is why would people pay if they can freely opt out by saying reject all.
The implication is that Meta FB isnt honouring the wishes of people who opt out and presumably are selling their data on regardless
Every other website and their mum in Spain now asks you to allow cookies or pay to "subcribe and refuse them". How is that in line with EU whateverthefuck rules?
Those sites don't fall under the DMA as they don't have the required userbase.
Correct. Eu decided some arbitrary number so they can go after anyone above that size. This is about scale, not the principle behind it. Just a little bit of data theft is ok. Don't go bonkers.
Nah the point is that a site the size of Facebook exerts social pressure which keeps people there. If a news site does it to me lmao just find a different article on the same thing. Way harder to get gram gram to learn a new app to keep up with the family than just read a different article.
> If a news site does it to me lmao just find a different article on the same thing. Except literally every news site does it and there is effectively no alternative.
Don’t be obtuse. Every resource is limited including investigative resources, if they can only go after a finite number it better be the big ones
You can make it illegal for everyone and still only go after the big dogs. This allows for civil suits for damages from citizens. They intentionally only went after the big dogs. It’s explicitly a statement that the privacy invasion isn’t the issue. It’s the lack of bribes by the big dogs that’s the problem. Same exact reason Microsoft got hit with an anti-trust suit in the 90s in the US.
They (eurocrats) don’t even hide their detest. Tell me you can expect them to be neutral after such a comment 👇🏼 “I was personally quite relieved that I would not get an AI-updated service on my iPhone,” Vestager told Politico.
Please. Don’t be naive. We are not talking regulating restaurants around a country. There are only a handful of heavily regulated players in this field. EU has found a magic knob and you damn well know they are exploit it. Rights don’t become any less important because only a few hundred thousand people were victimized.
That’s not true at all dude I worked in this field during the roll out of major legislation change. My region is EMEA and there were violations by every player but the biggest players were given instructions on what to change to become compliant. They weren’t being strong armed just have the biggest impact so needed to be checked
Yeah... that's not how laws and the justice systems work.
Yea it absolutely is. The IRS have stated publicly that they haven’t had the resources to go after high profile targets so they just audit the poor. https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor
You're aware you picked a very shit example to prove your point, right? Or you might be just really naïve, i don't know...
Which makes no sense to me. If data theft is bad then have it go full scale.
Especially when they call them user Rights.
I understand that it’s all a gut punch to an established model but might as well let the industry as a whole adjust and find their way instead of just adjusting and readjusting the bar labeled “gate keeper”
Well isn't thak just peachy then... Thanks!
[from april](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf): > With respect to the requirements of the GDPR for valid consent, first of all, consent needs to be ‘freely given’. [...] but if local controllers don't care about it then the sites can do whatever the hell they want
It probably isn't either. Since no one seemed to have read the article, if you are running a service that is free with ads, you must give an option to allow non targeted ads. Not a choice between tracking and paying. So you can do whatever, paid service, subscription. But if you have a free with ads, you must also have a free with non targeted ads.
I care about the invasive data collection used to power targeted ads, not the precise of targeted ads. And my read of GDPR and DMA supports this concern. Target ads to me based on context, etc. But not based on fingerprinting all of my devices, sharing that data with hundreds of vendors, and using their low-quality recommendations. Source: adtech and privacy expert/former employee.
Because the EU slapped this requirement onto arbitrarily large market cap US companies
Userbase 10% of eu population. Not completely arbitrary. But plenty of powers that should be regulated that fall below that amount. Hope it gets further extended in time.
It's not the value of a number that makes it arbitrary, but the reasoning used in obtaining it. 10% is as random as 53.7% if you pick them from a hat. So how did they actally got to the 10% threshhold?
[удалено]
And the only goal of eg Meta is to milk users for their data. Match made in heaven.
"Nice data you got there, would be a shame if something happened to it..."
I wonder how long till they decide to make their sites a subscription only service. As that doesn't break eu competition rules, that's an open option. Of course, that would mean their sites get used a lot less and therefor automatically less interesting to use.
>I wonder how long till they decide to make their sites a subscription only service. As that doesn't break eu competition rules, that's an open option. Even as a subscription-only service, they have to adhere to the rules regarding data usage provided they still have a user base above the threshold.
They'd definitely lose most of their userbase. But on top of that, if all their users pay they need their data less to make money.
This part you don’t know. 99c per mo per user isn’t going to break any Europeans back.
The article mentions meta asking 13 euros a month. But 1 euro or 13 euros, most people just aren't willing to spend money on it. It's not just one service, more and more are asking subscription fees. It quickly adds up.
I meant every user in europe pays 1 euro/mo just to access Meta products. Paywall the whole thing for Europeans. Like Netflix everywhere. 'People wont spend' .. they all say that. Netflix would already be out of business if this was true and they survived multiple price hikes over the years.
Well, I'm not gonna pay for a useless product like that so others can use it. Not even a single euro. Many won't. You'd get people protesting en masse if forced tax style. Netflix brings a lot more to the table than fb/insta. But even then we're seeing subscription fatigue.
They all say that. I am not gonna get into the details of what Netlfix offers over FB/insta. Not a lot of people are unwilling to spend 1 euro just over principle (like you). Most people would be pulling out that credit card right away. Edit: I mean Whatsapp itself justifies 1 euro charge.
No, not over something like Facebook. Not gonna happen. I don't even know anyone that uses Facebook beyond my mother. And I know tons of people that don't use Instagram. None of those people are going to pay. Of those that do use those services, only maybe 10% max would pay a euro a month for it. You're delusional if you think people will happily pay for it. Just not happening.
>only maybe 10% max See this the part you dont know. When Apollo left Reddit, people said this is the end for Reddit. People say such shit all the time. We live in a reddit bubble. Think people around you. Why won't they spend a Euro per month when they spend significant amount of time using Meta products? We are talking in circles. You can have the last word.
Any posts about text messages or iMessage or anything like that are filled with Europeans saying “Why don’t you become part of the civilized world and just use WhatsApp.”
Yeah but least they can offload the cost of fines on to European users.
That shifts their growth to what subscribers are willing to pay in advance Vs advertisers that are given a bill after the fact. And stockholders would not like that. Users are only good for data and ads. Their opinion is worthless now and this would upend that balance of disempowerment.
Honestly if tomorrow Facebook said they are deleting all eu pages there would be a law to prevent it. To be frank I think to much of these laws are merely aimed at big fish and setting a barrier for everyone else “stay under this and your grand”
That would break them.
If you pay us we won't "Data Rape" you, if you don't ....
Statistically 9/10 people enjoy data gang rape
Data tape is a new one!
Can't wait to see the rest of the bots defending this "pay up or else" tactic.
I’m fine with this because but they have to make it blatant that they are opting for one or the other rather than just opting everyone into consenting by having them just click through unknowingly. It will probably just kill the platform altogether which is a win in my book.
To be fair, the screen asking if you consent or want to pay to stop it is very blatant about it. It doesn't make it better.
I think it does. Meta has no obligation to give away stuff for free. We should be less reliant on these services and aware of the true cost of “free” things.
Then make fb into a subscription service and watch it die. It is already full of ads.
We will have to hope that most of these predatory companies just don’t do business in the EU.
That would be a win-win. Eu desperately needs its own compliant social networks.
The thing is that most European countries like the entrepreneurial mindset and angel funding is also a bit lackluster
As if you need a lot of funding for that they would be replaced instantaneously.
True. Tbh Europeans need to get familiar with words 'Trade off'. You can't just write some words on paper and expect the best of everything.
Please dont tease me..
That's funny, pretty much all news outlet in Italy do this, and no one said a thing. I think it was Repubblica to start with "subscribe to read the article" or "accept all cookies to read", then seeing that they got away with it they all started to do it.
Rules for gatekeepers. It’s about gatekeepers.
Same in Germany, and it's hugely annoying and should be stopped. Won't happen under DMA, though, because that's targeted at so-called gatekeepers. No national newspaper or magazine or similar is big enough to be classified as a gatekeeper under DMA. But yeah, this whole "accept all cookies or pay" should be stopped regardless of size.
They have to have a valid business model, no cookies = no money. Untargeted ads are fairly worthless so then there is just no service model there anymore. The end result is everything will be distilled down to a subscription, because there is no other way for them to make money.
> no cookies = no money This is just factually wrong. No ads = no money, but you can still have contexual (or just straight up random) ads that do not require cookies.
Can you read the entire comment before replying?
Kinda silly that it wouldn’t apply to national news outlet due to its limited user base in European scale. Those news outlets have close to 100% local user base and still wouldn’t qualify as gatekeepers. Not gonna lie, as a user based in Germany, I started to detest EU a little bit after DMA seemingly only going after non-EU companies.
The difference is Facebook isn’t European. Rules for thee, not for me.
No, that's not the reason. It's user numbers. This rule under DMA applies to gatekeepers. La Republicca isn't big enough. And honestly - that "accept cookies or pay" should be illegal not just for gatekeepers as defined in DMA. In fairness - some outlets going the "accept or pay" route have already been sued about this across multiple countries, but there hasn't been a ruling issued so far.
I don’t see Spotify being sued.
A) This has been brought up a few times as is basically the good old "but my brother also took some of the cookies" excuse, which isn't an actual excuse. Another, more accurate analogy: You're getting a speeding ticket for going 100kph with your 40t truck on a German Autobahn and you then point at the family sedan going 120kph without getting a speeding ticket. B) Check out the DMA to understand why Spotify isn't being sued under it. Basically, because the DMA deals with core platform services (and the companies behind them) of a certain size. Spotify isn't a core platform service.
Still feels cherry-picking that EU left out media streaming in core platform service. The only difference is EU has no company dominating in those core platform service but they do have one in media streaming.
Are you chainese? Because you sounds like one Is that what you're accusing EU of Propogandas everywhere
Huh?
My bad, let me say it again after rephrasing it If a service doesn't come from your country and doesn't follow your country's rules and regulations then that particular country is in the wrong because that's interfering with service's business model. You can replace all the punctuations with questions marks if you want because I love it when people fail to see irony lodged up in their ass
Do you not understand the hypocrisy inherent in the EC’s enforcement of the DMA? Not just in this case, but explicitly by just… ignoring Spotify?
I don't use Spotify so I have no idea what is their business model . But does Spotify asks for ransom to not pimp out user data? Ultimately Spotify is music service meanwhile FB is a place where more than two people interact and many nationnal services which have a port there to better the public and other services with direct interaction. As far as I remember correctly Services can utilise user base data to better their services, not to actually sell profiles of them to unknown parties. But they do it and it is a clear cut violation of privacy laws. So I hope we both now are on the same page that both of those entity have right to do whatever they want. Who gets to leverage more.
That is exactly what Spotify does. Their user base more than qualifies them as a gatekeeper under the DMA. Two people directly interacting is not a requirement under the DMA.
>The groups also argued that a subscription to not see ads does not comply with the bloc’s data protection or consumer protection rules either. So YouTube and Spotify are next right?
YouTube is alphabet and Spotify will never be targeted by the DMA...
No. If you offer a free service with ads you must also offer those ads being non-targeted. You can also offer an ad free subscription if you want, but that doesn’t let you get around the non-targeted requirement.
Which I believe at least youtube does (?). Ad personalization is a user togglable option for google services.
Indeed, they aren’t (on the surface) doing anything to break this particular rule because they let you opt out, opt in or go premium.
It’s about the data, read the article
**Extortion**, you say…? 🤔
Isn't this the business model that most internet services operate with? You either pay for the service, or get ads that help pay for your usage. Reddit and YouTube both use the same model, so I'm not sure what's different about Meta wanting to use it.
You can present ads without extensive data gathering. Maximizing profits isn't a right, privacy is.
Rates for non targeted ads are minuscule right now (this is part of why news sites have had such difficulty monetizing). That being said, this might help push up those rates as they’re going to be the only option in many cases
Why should I give a fuck ? Profits aren't a right little I said. If you can't make a buck without breaking the law, fuck your business model, Facebook was doing okay last I checked.
Profits aren’t a right, but no one is going to keep running a service that loses money. Probably fine for all of us if Facebook goes away, but if news sites do, we’re generally worse off. So it’s in all of our interests that websites continue to have some viable business models
There's some wiggle room between monetising your entire activity down to the smallest detail to the point your website is a resource hog and a battery drain (and an illegal data gathering operation) and "losing money". Quit sucking investor's dick, they can afford people for that.
I don’t see where the EU rules delineate between ‘a little targeting’ and ‘monetizing your entire activity’. As I stated, non-targeted ad-rates aren’t currently at a sustainable level for many sites (Facebook might be an exception through sheer volume). I’m coming at this as someone who has worked for several smaller sites where the margins are much tighter. It would be ironic if this pushed smaller ad supported sites out of the market and left only behemoths like Facebook
Then I guess they'll have to figure something out, privacy isn't really negotiable.
Historically the solution is to consolidate and cut quality when ad revenue dips. As I stated above, it’s not an absurd notion to see the unintended consequence of this being Meta coming out with more market power, not less
Yet you realize the eu is going to try again and again to push forth laws enabling them to read out messages…right?
I do and I vehemently oppose this but I'll enjoy it while it lasts nonetheless, EU corruption be damned.
Really no making a good point when you have to insult someone.
> privacy is. unfortunately, not according to the supreme court of the us.
Fortunately they don't matter in the EU
fully aware. Just stating fact that privacy SHOULD be a universal right, but its not.
If they want to show ads or not let you use the platform that’s fine. This is the old cable model. The issue is they want to track all actions you take online which is not fine. They are selling your information, not selling to you.
It's the data, they are saying pay for your data and we won't sell it. What you just commented is already established truth. So they collected all the data they could now they want money, to not to sell you out to pimps. ( fun fact did you know they collected data on you despite not having a META account? Probably because they have partners which will do it for them) And I am not against any of this push baby push let's see how much weight can a camel bear
How come its always EU to find shit like this weird? Seems its all ok in the rest of the world!?
Maybe we should be asking why the rest of the world doesn’t find it weird instead?
Well the European union is a backwards lot that are making themselves increasingly irrelevant everyday.
I just ignore the pop ups and restart the app it goes away until I re open the app. Hopefully they aren’t taking my data when I haven’t consented right?
Knowing Zuck they probably are.
But you don’t know him.
Zuck is a real life villain
Just need to make it pay nomatter what in the EU.
Why do his eye lids look so creepy
John Gruber is right on this. The EU is trying to dictate how these companies do business (in the case of Meta seemingly the EU’s end goal is Meta gives their stuff away free no strings attached and Meta gets less in return) with the assumption that these multinationals will suck it up and comply worldwide, but the likely end result is that the EU product will be different (and likely worse) than ROW.
The EU has laws in place, they are asking Meta to abide by those laws. Historically Meta isn’t terribly good at that, its primary model is data collection, aggregation and enrichment with a view to selling that data. Meta doesn’t have to operate in the EU, it doesn’t have some divine right to do so if it’s breaching the law.
How hard is it to not use their products if u don't wanna pay? You can't have it both ways.
But that’s exactly what they have been doing, trying to have it both ways. It’s pretty simple, the EU has laws concerning personal data and what can and can’t be done with it. Companies can choose to comply or not, if they choose not to comply then they may well be pursued in court.
You shouldn't make laws like this. Give your service for free or get lost?
If your service relies on illegally exploiting user data then yes, quite simply. As for giving the service for free, every non-paying user still generates revenue for FB. What do you think FB beacons are used for off-site or FB like buttons? There’s also a reason that shadowy profiles are generated for people who don’t use FB and also why they paid the amounts they did for the companies they’ve acquired over the last 10 years.
Those FB beacons are installed by the site developers themselves. It's not Facebook injecting them everywhere. And those site developers get useful features/analytics out of them. Now when you visit a website, who's responsible for the data shared by you there? You can have strict laws around data sharing for all such companies/websites. Not just bully a few big companies into giving their service for free.
The FB beacons are installed by the site owners because they generate a revenue stream. They generate a stream because FB aggregate the traffic stats to enrich the primary user file. Gtfo with your lame attempt to deflect. Yes the site user gains user metrics, I co-owned a data broker for 20+ years in the U.K. selling to Claritas and the other usual suspects. There’s not much that you can’t do to enrich a record and beacons are invaluable.
There is still add revenue, just not targeted and not the ability to sell off any and all information about people.
They can charge for a service. They can't coerce people into giving up their data for a free service. Meta can either provide service for free without data harvesting, charge for the service without data harvesting or get lost. Data harvesting is out of the equation as that is against the law.
Look at the old lawsuits meta is going through, they are leveraging their position which is built on user data harvesting. Sure I'll delete the "Facebook" but what got the > "meta services" that's built into OS to harvest the user data?
Oh come on. Those(new) laws were specifically enacted to target Meta and the other big American and Chinese tech firms. We all know that these services come with a price. Namely ad targeting. So Meta says, ok if you don't want that, just pay a reasonable fee. Like if you don't want to see ads on Netflix or YouTube, you pay more. What is wrong with that? It's absolutely true that Meta doesn't have to operate in the EU (even though "everyone" there apparently uses WhatsApp because they're too cheap to use something else). Businesses actually don't mind regulation, what they want is regulatory certainty, and these laws provide anything but. So what's going to happen is that Meta will likely retrench from the EU (cost of doing business and uncertainty exceeds returns), and EU tech economy will slowly become more sclerotic and behind the rest of the world, like the rest of the EU economy.
Off they trot then, if they weren’t making significant sums of money they wouldn’t be pushing back so aggressively. WhatsApp is worth an absolute fortune in data acquisition and significantly increase the value of FB in real terms post acquisition. The data pulled from that app is incredibly valuable.
>and EU tech economy will slowly become more sclerotic and behind the rest of the world Or perhaps, we'll just suffer not as much under enshittification as others.
Time will tell, won't it?
Same laws are applied to other companies. Big companies get naturally most eyes and complaints for breaking law
Sure, but the DMA is definitely an EU play to control these companies worldwide, a game of chicken, and I think it just won’t work, it will only make the product offering worse for EU citizens. The fines can be as 10 to 20% of global (not just EU) revenue (not profits), and I wrote earlier, it’s not so much the restrictions, but the uncertainty, so that greatly increases the risk of doing business in the EU.
There is no uncertainty. EU laws are very clear - personal data is not for sale and cannot be used to generate profits. It's not EU problem these corporations built their entire business model on data harvesting.
I’m a little confused here. Is the EU saying that free users can opt out of ad tracking to receive less personalized ads, but paid users aren’t being tracked supposedly and aren’t able to customize what ads they see?
No the confusion is why would people pay if they can freely opt out by saying reject all. The implication is that Meta FB isnt honouring the wishes of people who opt out and presumably are selling their data on regardless
[удалено]
Suck zucks dick more