Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twipla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

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

#31

Post by paxys »

matrixlab wrote: post #30
paxys wrote: 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".

Pricing isn't based on operating costs but market value of services offered. That's how every business in the world works.

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

#32

Post by jkaplowitz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4
TWIPLA wrote: post #2

[dead]

> it's a shocking infringement This is wanting one’s cake and eating it too. Facebook makes a product. Users use it. In the past, people reasonably complained that there was no way to pay without compromising one’s privacy. Now there is. (I want enforcement to confirm that those paying are not being tracked. But given that constitutes fraud, it will be enforced.) Rejecting tracking and paying is like rejecting ad-cor…

The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can only assume they set the price so high as an intentional deterrent. They want as few people as possible to purchase this alternative, rather than simply to try to keep their revenue satisfactory either way.

In other words, they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads, but even if the GDPR does allow pay-or-OK consent schemes - this is itself an unsettled legal question - it’s far from clear that declining an unaffordably priced alternative counts as the kind of free consent the GDPR requires for consent-based processing. Lots of cases are still working their way through European DPAs and courts.

And, frustratingly, I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription. They just promise not to use the information for ads. They still allow themselves to process your data for many other purposes which under EU law should have a way to say no.

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

#33

Post by matrixlab »

paxys wrote: post #31
matrixlab wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Pricing isn't based on operating costs but market value of services offered. That's how every business in the world works.

If Meta found a way to double their ad revenue from non-paying users, would you expect the price for this subscription to double?

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

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #32
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a shocking infringement This is wanting one’s cake and eating it too. Facebook makes a product. Users use it. In the past, people reasonably complained that there was no way to pay without compromising one’s privacy. Now there is. (I want enforcement to confirm that those paying are not being tracked. But given that constitutes fraud, it will be enforced.) Rejecting tracking and paying is like rejecting ad-cor…

The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can only assume they set the price so high as an intentional deterrent. They want as few people as possible to purchase this alternative, rather than simply to try to keep their revenue satisfactory either way. In other words, they want to pretend that they are a…

> they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads

Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier.

> I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription

This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy community. (Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.)

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

#35

Post by shortsunblack »

csallen wrote: post #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.

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.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

matrixlab wrote: post #33
paxys wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing isn't based on operating costs but market value of services offered. That's how every business in the world works.

If Meta found a way to double their ad revenue from non-paying users, would you expect the price for this subscription to double?

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

shortsunblack wrote: post #35
csallen wrote: post #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.

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, uncoer…

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by underseacables »

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.

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

#39

Post by jkaplowitz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
jkaplowitz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can only assume they set the price so high as an intentional deterrent. They want as few people as possible to purchase this alternative, rather than simply to try to keep their revenue satisfactory either way. In other words, they want to pretend that they are a…

> they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier. > I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy…

> Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier.

This action is explicitly about responding to EU GDPR regulations by trying to claim that people who decline a subscription are freely giving consent to the processing which the subscription would stop. From the official rulings which have so far been made about other companies by a few DPAs, it’s highly doubtful that the prohibitively high price for this tier will qualify as a viable enough alternative to the no-fee option to treat people’s consent to the processing as freely given.

> This is annoying.

This is Meta engaging in outright dishonest subterfuge, because the law with which they’re trying to fake compliance through this subscription option is not limited to advertising in any way.

> Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.

Not in my estimation. Too many professional and social circumstances in too many countries require using Facebook, Instagram, and/or especially WhatsApp for most people to avoid them completely.

For those of us (including me) who have never so far signed up with them, there’s another problem: they don’t provide a way for me to exercise my GDPR rights without being a subscriber, even though I strongly expect that they control and process much data about me uploaded by friends and family who are their users, and by Facebook tracking on other sites. (For those HN readers who realize that I’m American: I currently reside in and am located in Germany, so yes I have GDPR rights.)

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

#40

Post by rapsin4 »

matrixlab wrote: post #33
paxys wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing isn't based on operating costs but market value of services offered. That's how every business in the world works.

If Meta found a way to double their ad revenue from non-paying users, would you expect the price for this subscription to double?

Yes it'll actually have to more than double, since the high-value users (from perspective of advertisers) will more likely opt-in to the ad-free plan. The opportunity cost will be insane otherwise.
Post reply on HN