147
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 19 points 4 months ago

Let's hope they get fined and it sets a precedent. That crap of" pay or consent" it's becoming the norm in every site I visit. That's not a free choice. I'm forced to consent if I don't want to pay, so it should be a flawed consent.

[-] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

European law generally isn't precedent-based, but the commission already put out a statement saying that "pay-or-okay" models are not GDPR compliant. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf

[-] rikudou -3 points 4 months ago

I disagree, no one is by law obligated to provide free services for you. Either pay or have ads is fine by me.

And DMA does not care about your local newspaper site, unless they're so big that they're a gatekeeper. Ruling based on DMA does not affect anyone but the gatekeepers.

[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Pay or have ads is fine by the EU’s DMA law too. What isn’t fine is the collection of user data without consent. Facebook can show all the ads they want, but if they collect user data to target those ads they need consent.

Think about radio or TV advertising - those aren’t targeted at specific people, but rather they’re targeted based on what channel, time of day and TV shows that they’re around. Meta can do the same stuff, but they just don’t want to give up that lucrative user data.

[-] rikudou -4 points 4 months ago

I obviously meant ads that track you, didn't know I have to spell it out. So to clarify, I was talking about the tracking kind of ads which need user consent. My point was that giving consent or paying is fine in my book, because you have a choice and no one is entitled to a free service. And that even if DMA decides it's not, it doesn't concern anyone but a few select companies.

To be fair, I'm like 80% sure it was perfectly clear in the original comment as well.

[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I was making the point that ad-supported services have been financially viable for centuries without needing to invade personal privacy, and that governments have been regulating industries for even longer - and at this point, your personal choice doesn’t really matter. You might be perfectly happy to eat food cooked in an unhygienic kitchen, for example, but enough people have been harmed in the past for food hygiene regulations to be commonplace worldwide.

[-] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 6 points 4 months ago

It's not about having free services but flawed consent. I can't give you my consent if it's either pay or accept tracking tracking. That's not a free consent, and that's what's being ruled here. Give me a paywall, I'm fine with it. But don't you go saying you're giving me a free choice when it's either pay or screw your privacy. That's not consent, that's extortion.

[-] rikudou 0 points 4 months ago

That's a choice, my choice is to back away or use an anonymous window and accept the tracking if I really want to see the content.

It's just another paywall, it just gives you the option of paying with your data. It's your choice what's more valuable.

But I get it, people want choices shoved down their throats, they don't want to actually choose. That's why paywall is fine, but paywall with free-with-tracking-option is the big bad. No one forces you to give your consent, give it or don't, it's up to you.

You don't want the choice to consent, you want to be angry at someone about something.

[-] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 1 points 4 months ago

You don't get it. The problem is that the consent is not free. I can't give my consent to be tracked if the alternative is to pay a fee. It's as simple as that. The consent must be given without flaws, I can't be forced to accept the tracking, because then it's not a consent. You should stop shilling for corpos.

[-] rikudou 1 points 4 months ago

You're not forced. And I'm not shilling anyone, for all I care Meta can collapse, I don't use any of their products because of their tracking. See, I made my choice, you want to push your choice onto others, big difference.

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
147 points (98.0% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2186 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS