• harlatan@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    that would be illegal too, because that information is not strictly necessary for their service - they could only opt to not provide the service in the eu

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

      • ELI70@lemmy.run
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model,

        Couldn’t that claim be countered by pointing out that they already deploy a for pay approach called youtube premium?

        • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, because businesses have multiple revenue streams. YouTube has a subscription offering, and a free, advertiser-supported offering. Both are part of their business model.