> In effect, users are expected to pay up to €228 a year to preserve their fundamental right to privacy
No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".
Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.
Starbucks doesn't say "hey here's a free coffee", hand me the coffee, and then say I implicitly agreed to a 500 page lawyer-exploitable EULA by taking the coffee... and then later say "well, if you're enjoying that coffee you can give us $5 in cash instead.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
I have no insights into the per-user cost for Meta to run their platform, but I have a hard time imagining that's what this is based on. I think it's much more likely that users are paying a price based on "what Meta could be making if they sold their data".
HS.fi had an article (in Finnish) about this today that said how it won't even increase privacy because the terms of service are completely unchanged and they'll want to keep collecting that data in case you stop paying for the ad-free version. The data they collect on you just won't be used to show you targeted ads while you pay.
The level of entitlement here is outrageous. Social media monetizes via ads. Whether or not you like that practice, if you're going to force them to allow users to turn the ads off, how can you complain about them charging a monthly subscription?
Free access to a company's services is not a fundamental right.
No one is arguing for free access. What people are arguing for is respecting fundamental rights. It is not the job of users to create business strategy plans for an enterprise. The enterprise has the burden of proof to problem solve and find a monetization strategy that both is profitable and legal. Meta still can serve ads. Ads that are GDPR compliant. So either GDPR-applicable consent (informed, unambiguous, uncoerced, specific, withdrawble) for personalization or contextual ads that require little personal data processing to serve.
I just don’t use Meta products. It’s not as simple as paying to not watch ads, your privacy is not guaranteed. IMO paying for Meta is the same as paying to have a camera watching you 24/7 and being told it’s a privilege.
This policy very plausibly is not legal.
From the text of GDPR,
"(42) ... Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment."
Consent or else is not 'free choice'. Austrian DPA already ruled pay or okay is not GDPR compliant: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=DSB_(Austria)_-_2023-0.17... and noyb has signalled intent in fighting this policy. Furthermore, the remarks on which Meta relies given by CJEU were not binding.
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071472
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38068635
No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".
Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000009982537.html
Free access to a company's services is not a fundamental right.
Deleted Comment
Is this really true?
Or is the truth a "fee to stop seeing ads" and this article a big clickbait lie?
(Genuinely asking.)