Live data from Hacker News

Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

twipla.com

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

#21
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.

Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

#22
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.

Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

#23
post #17

> 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…

Or you know, keep doing what I have done for the last fifteen years: Ublock Origin.

Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

#25
post #17

> 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…

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.

Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

#30
post #17

> 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…

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".
Post reply on HN