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."
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.
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.
“””
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
(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...
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.
Deleted Comment
“”” 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
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.
I wonder why he didn't.
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2023/imy-issue...
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...
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.
Deleted Comment
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
Deleted Comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you can take milk from walmart without paying if you agree to tracking? Analogies are not arguments.