Platforms should not confront users with 'binary choice' over personal data use

The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

In October last year, the social media giant said it would be possible to pay Meta to stop Instagram or Facebook feeds of personalized ads and prevent it from using personal data for marketing for users in the EU, EEA, or Switzerland. Meta then announced a subscription model of €9.99/month on the web or €12.99/month on iOS and Android for users who did not want their personal data used for targeted advertising.

At the time, Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb, said: “EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a ‘privacy fee’ of up to €250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection.”

  • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    You have the right to not own a car. But if you do, you must have insurance for it (in Germany, at least). You cannot hide behind GDPR and say “I have a right to my data. I must not be asked to give it to any insurer without my consent.” You also need to have a driver’s license with your name and photo on it. GDPR doesn’t protect you there, either.

    The bottom line is: Using a product may come with responsibilities or other concessions. You have the right to not use the product if the concessions aren’t worth it to you. You do not have the right to any product if you refuse the obligations that come with it.

    This is, of course, my own opinion based on my understanding of how the world should work.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      2·
      8 months ago

      They can’t assign any concessions they wants that’s the entire point. You have rights you can’t sign away even if you want to. I mean dude you’re defending facebook, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy. Your assumption should be they are probably wrong until proven otherwise.

      • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
        3·
        8 months ago

        I mean dude you’re defending Meta, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy

        That’s argumentum ad hominem. If the law means what you think it means, it applies whether we’re talking about EvilCorp or SaveTheWhaleChildrenBeeFluff.

        Also recall the very first thing I said on this topic:

        I’m all for GDPR and really enjoy its protections, but I don’t understand this one.

        I’m playing devil’s advocate in order to gain insight, because I have no clue how this board reaches its conclusions.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          1·
          8 months ago

          I’m playing Devil’s advocate

          Don’t it’s obnoxious and not insightful. It’s how teens test drive arguments without repercussions.

    • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      Oh, by the way… you have all those rights, but from now on you can only have them if you pay 10$/mo, otherwise we’ll take it upon ourselves to switching on all telemetry and cameras in your car and pass that data on to insurers and others.

      Actually… it doesn’t even qualify as analogy, more like premonition.