So I will offer constructive pushback instead of inane downvotes like everyone else.

clowns

This word does literally nothing except trivialize your argument and so make it less convincing.

don't give a shit

Ditto. Makes you sound angry and irrational. Not much of an incentive to go on reading.

psychotic

psychopathy

These are medical terms. Presumably you will claim to mean them literally and not figuratively. But really, nobody is going to assume in good faith that you're a doctor or a psychologist. So, again, the result is to undermine your whole point and make it seem like empty bloviating.

Hope that helps.

EU elite are the same liberal/capitalist clowns as in the US (funded by oligarchs), and they don’t give a shit about EU citizens or our privacy. All capitalist corporation act the same psychotic way and should be shut down, but this is pure protectionism against US big tech.

Glad to see honest and sensible take on this.

I'm happy about the GDPR but I have my doubts about all the fines of cases versus big tech in the past. Those fines are peanuts for big tech, and where is the money of those fines going ? To protect Fortress Europe or what ? To keep paying Microsoft, Google and other cloud licenses ? It is unbelievable that some organizations in this year 2024 still come up with arguments that "there is no better offer" or "no choice" and then move parts or the complete of their IT into the cloud of USA corporations. Worrying especially given the risk that Donald Trump will be back in power. "Digital sovereignty" is a word that has been wiped from the vocabulary since years in Europe.

The deal has always been that targeted advertising is how you pay for a free service.

Always is a heck of a long time. Decades ago when ads on websites slowly became popular it was just ads. But no personalized targeting.

This isn’t exclusive to Facebook.

Offering an ad free experience for a subscription fee is an extremely common practice. Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

Extremely common practice does not make it good nor does it make it a good reason to normalize or ignore these things. For example exploitation in labor and in housing is also extremely common practice. No reason to make exploitation on the Internet seem like a fair game and expand it further. Sustainability should be a key word here in my point of view.

I think there’s a difference between “generic ads we show you to support our platform” and “we’re selling your data to other people to give us revenue, so you have to offset that loss”. The latter involves your privacy around data which is the target.

It's bad because the subscription fee is ridiculous high compared, and only for one reason.

And that's getting you to consent, because comprehensive data is worth more for them.

Also, the whole point is to give back users the right to their data. They don't take away Facebooks right to show ads.

Selling personal data is not equal showing ads.

They aren't attacking the business model, they are specifically attacking Facebook because it is distorting the market and destroying competition.

This isn’t exclusive to Facebook.

But this rule is all but exclusive to companies that are so big they are operating in a non-competitive market as defined by new EU regulations. Companies can still do it, Facebook and five others can't. If your platform gets so big that people can't find alternatives easily, you get on the list, and you can't do that any more either.

Offering an ad free experience for a subscription fee is an extremely common practice. Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

There is no requirement on Facebook to offer a free service. They can ask for as much money they want or not ask for money. They just can't make data harvesting mandatory for any customers. This is not a judgment of the business model, this is just acknowledging that some platforms have become so big that you can't live your life without them, so their interest to free commerce and self-determination is secondary to the basic right to privacy that all EU citizens have.

The deal has always been that ~~targeted~~ advertising is how you pay for a free service.

FTFY.

The adverts on free websites for a very long time were not targeted.

Do people really expect to be able to use an entertainment platform for free?

No. If facebook wants, it can make the subscription mandatory, so only ppl who pay may access their service.

From what I understand the GDPR says you have to give users a real choice about the usage of their data, without any unreasonable negative repercussions. Having to pay money (at least as much as they are asking for) is such an unacceptable repercussion, no matter how FB might phrase it.

They are allowed to take money or show ads for access, but they can't couple that decision with the one about the user's data usage.