This 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 ke…
Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
11–20 of 136 posts
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#12I 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 pay for services instead of being the product That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?)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 priv…
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#13Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#14Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#15I 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 pay for services instead of being the product That cliché is no longer applicable (was it ever?)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 priv…
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#16I 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 priv…
Consider that paying makes you prime rib for Sunday dinner from a data perspective: card verified PII.
And do not forget that you can be assigned an ID and disassociated from your data, which can then be tracked anonymously completely legally as a non-personally identifiable account. And let me assure you de-anonymizing a collected dataset is often not a very difficult problem in the modern data brokerage filled era.
We cannot pay out way out of this. We need rights to privacy and deletion enshrined in constitutional-style law, and soon. It must become a fundamental human right.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#17This 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 ke…
could you please explain what those abbreviations mean? I know GDPR, but the rest are obscure to me.
DPA: Data Protection Authority. They're local to each EU country (including those that aren't full Member States but do follow EU laws) and it's their job to enforce the GDPR at a country level. Usually they're a government department. The one you hear the most in the context of GAFAM enforcement is the Irish one, which is infamously underequipped and overburdened because GAFAM has lobbied the Irish government to not take enforcement seriously so all GAFAM companies can put their EU headquarters there (which permits them to only have to comply with the Irish DPA, something called the "one-stop shop" solution.)
CJEU: Court of Justice of the European Union. Think SCOTUS but for the EU. While technically the CJEU doesn't operate on the concept of precedent (its main job is enforcing that Member States follow EU laws and directives correctly), their interpretations of EU law are the final interpretation of those laws. Usually once a case has gone through a DPA and isn't resolved satisfactorily (or isn't complied with), it ends up before CJEU. GAFAM has dragged basically all enforcement cases before CJEU to drag out the process.
GAFAM: An abbreviation referring to the five largest American tech giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft. Usually is used as a shorthand for the "big tech" side of the IT industry.
Re: Meta unlawfully ignores the users' right to easily withdraw consent: complaint
#18I love NOYB, please donate to them (recurring is better), they do very impactful work to safeguard our privacy.