The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta plans to move to a “Pay for your Rights” model, where EU users will have to pay $ 168 a year (€ 160 a year) if they don’t agree to give up their fundamental right to privacy on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. History has shown that Meta’s regulator, the Irish DPC, is likely to agree to any way that Meta can bypass the GDPR. However, the company may also be able to use six words from a recent Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling to support its approach.

  • ByteWelder@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It seems like this might break the GDPR rules for consent:

    Any element of inappropriate pressure or influence which could affect the outcome of that choice renders the consent invalid.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/

    or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/

    I’m not a lawyer though, so maybe a legal expert can chime in.

    edit: the jury is still out it seems:

    https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/03/meta-subscription-vs-consent/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABXvq4gDtgSKnXvCAx2C40IAS1pZN18iMRe1jIOWVmAuX56cB_I10D-rZK56vFCfBJbyBWKNsdQ3EJI0DlxTdCxvR30jFbSsGUNh2cAL2j8wEKE2ZB7_pvesnBewpTMDRG7JLGZpOSyDdy0SsgqIx29qGEhdSlF1e1JHTG0-4G_p

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’d have a hard time legally saying that they have to provide a service to users when that service is paid for by selling access to users via advertising, even if the user refuses to allow that access. It would probably qualify as “necessary for such performance”.

      Having the extra option to pay to remove ads (while I think this price is ridiculously excessive) is a pretty reasonable compromise. Although it also feels kinda icky in the sense that it means you’re essentially turning privacy into a privilege for the wealthy. So I dunno, it’s a tricky issue.

      • racsol@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, but it’s not like using Meta is mandatory. You can decide not to use their services.

        • folkrav@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This point gets tricky once things become ubiquitous enough. If I did decide not to use their services (specifically Messenger), I’d be cutting myself off from communicating with 90% of my family, unfortunately. So yeah, it’s a choice that can be made… But how much of a choice is it, in practice?

          • racsol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not easy, I agree.

            I’ve been without any Meta services for 2 years already. In my experience, people have been more understanding regarding that than I initially imagined.

            I believe that the choice can be made so I did. I still think most people can. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect the reasons anyone might have to stay.

            I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.

            • thekinghaslost@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.

              It also kind of depends on your environment, especially where you live.

              If you live in places like US where most messaging is done through SMS or iMessage and calls are done using standard phone call or FaceTime, it’s probably just “not easy” to move away from Meta services.

              But when you live in places where Meta services (especially WhatsApp, where it’s the most used messaging service outside the US) are the only way to contact anyone, well, it’s virtually impossible to move away from Meta services.

              If I stopped using WhatsApp at this moment, it literally means I won’t have any way to contact anyone. Very close friends and close family, maybe I can force them to install Signal, but anyone else? Probably not.

              Phone call, maybe, but it’s expensive and most people don’t pick up phone anymore. SMS? Well, not only it’s expensive, even if I’m fine with paying for SMS, most people probably don’t so they won’t reply. It’s not “harder to contact anyone”, it’s literally “can’t contact anyone”.

              That reminds me, though I understand the controversy of EU’s “standardized messaging protocol” regulation, I kind of wish it can work out somehow, so I can get the heck out of WhatsApp and still able to contact people.

              • racsol@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I just strongly disagree that people don’t have a choice.

                Just to give the full context regarding my opinion: I do live in an EU country in which WhatsApp is the default messaging app and Instagram is where people my age and younger use to keep in touch with their social circle.

                It’s been how you’ve said. A lot of people I cannot easily reach out. I’ve managed not to be completely isolated through Telegram.

                People I’m really close to me have been kind enough to meet me there. Even some collegues from my previous work. Every time I’ve gone out with them, we’ve talked there.

                Now I’m in very few family/friends chat groups (the ones I’m in, I actually care about). There’s less distractions and notifications. So at least that have been an advantage.

                Edit 1: Some typos and grammar mistakes.

                Edit 2: Also, I can’t say there’s no ocasional friction regarding not using Meta. As you said, I’d be amazing if they had interoperability with other messaging services without tracking me. Things would be a lot easier for me.

                  • racsol@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    True in the sense that Telegram is not a real privacy-respecting alternative. So, it’s a good thing to point out.

                    My reasons for leaving Meta are more anti-Meta than anything else. For those who have succeeded at using something really private, my respects. I just not had any good alternative without being cut off society.

                    If I thought there was no difference between Telegram and WhatsApp, I’d have kept using WhatsApp. But yeah, it’s not good option anyway. Just good-enough compromise for me to leave Meta.

        • cerement@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          just because you’re not using their service doesn’t mean they aren’t using your shadow profile

          • racsol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Indeed. I can’t know for sure. But the GDPR is supposed to make that illegal.

            That’s a different conversation.

      • michaelrose@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Necessary for performance of such service is like needing your address to ship you food or your identity data to connect you with individuals seeking to employ you. EG the info is necessary and relevant to the performance of the actual task at hand not I need all your data so I can sell it to make money. The alternative is so expansive that it would automatically authorize all possible data collection which is obviously not the intent of the law.

    • thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Techcrunch article is misunderstanding the meaning of freely given. It means not under duress and with full understanding. Paying for a service categorically doesnt contradict that.

      However the odds of facebook explaining in plain english the egregious privacy breaches they do is unlikely so there’s prob a get out there anyway.

      Can’t see how it breaches consent unless, as above they don’t explain what they’re doing to gather info for “personalised” ads.

      Am lawyer, not gdpr /EU specialist though.