204
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
204 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
37341 readers
537 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well... Meta isn't a charity so they need to have a monetization model. If something is free then you are the product. Is 120 euros not worth your privacy? If the answer is "no" then your choice is to accept the ads or not to use the platform. I don't see how this is a problem.
So, that blog post is by Tutanota who, as we're all aware, also offer a paid-for product. But there's a lot of difference between a paid-for product that will only respect your privacy if you pay for it (and even that is questionable) and a paid-for product that just does respect your privacy, even on their free tier.
And, as others have said, Meta have made little to no mention of several things about this paid-for model:
point 3 is actually irrelevent unless this is done for propaganda reasons (highly likely though). theres no reason they wouldnt want to make a large amount of money and offering a choice that wasnt there before isnt a scenario where we're somehow worse off - at the worse we're the same
Is it really a choice though if you want to be private but you can't afford 13 euros a month?
It's not the fact they're charging that's the issue, it's the fact they're charging such a massive amount of money.
Meta is Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp right? Some people would argue it could harm your social life to not be on those, depending on your social circle of course. Now if it becomes lose friends or pay or lose privacy, this might not be an actual choice but a one made for you.
The other problem is when legislation makes privacy a right, you can't then have a company sell it to you. That's like a company charging you to vote because all voting booths happen to be standing in their buildings.
Your response tickles my brain. Thank you.
I might be wrong, but I think GDPR means in this scenario if you won't pay, you aren't consenting to the ads. Meta by GDPR standards should be blocking you, not forcing ads on you.
They can't create a implicit permission for it.
It does not have to be implicit. Just redirect to a page where you either have to accept or get logged out.
That's...basically what I said.