Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#2I love NOYB, please donate to them (recurring is better), they do very impactful work to safeguard our privacy.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#3I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#4I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
Why do you applaud this? What's it got to do with making a pay option?
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#5The DPC (if it is legally an option) should go for the highest possible fines available to them at this point, since Meta has by repeated and wilful infringing made it pretty clear that they will try anything to get around these laws.
Like I have some sympathy for a legacy business that simply mismanages their GDPR obligations and buys some dodgy "compliance management" solution and ends up infringing - there a "slap on the wrist" light enforcement is appropriate.
But Meta has been entangled in GDPR enforcement since the beginning, repeatedly, who clearly understood the regulation to begin with and went straight out of the gates attempting to workaround and arguably being the reason the regulation was enacted in the first place.
I really want to see those 4% of global revenue fines piling on at this point.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#6I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
> pay for services instead of being the product
That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?) and repeating it only helps the worst infringers.
You can pay and still be the product. Consider the streaming services which charge you but still serve ads, or physical appliances that you buy but send your usage habits to the manufacturer (like TVs). Paying is not a guarantee that a company will treat you or your privacy with respect.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#7I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
You’re always the product, even if you pay. As long as it’s legal and profitable (or perhaps even illegal), you’ll always be the product.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#8I also applaud this and personally would prefer to just pay for services instead of being the product, but I'm afraid this is not a popular opinion. People don't want to pay, at least not knowingly. I'm curious how this will play out.
The personal data of a user who pays is more valuable than that of a user who doesn't pay ;)
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#9I haven't touched Instagram since they offered this ultimatum.
Hopefully I can wait it out. The only reason I might have needed to use it would be to reach people whose contact I only have on there.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#10This is an interesting argument. I wonder how it would be handled if Facebook instead had a 2-tier system where both tiers were paid. So you'd have to pay a base fee to use Facebook (and get tracked) and then a premium tier to remove the tracking.
Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with such a system (that are obviously the reason why NOYB is filing), the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think.
Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Facebook doing it will likely drag the practice to CJEU, which is the worst outcome for this scheme because CJEU tends to not like GAFAMs "it's not against the letter, but against the spirit" crap in the slightest. I personally wouldn't be surprised if CJEU ends up shooting down the scheme as violating the GDPR.