Facebook makes a product. Users use it. In the past, people reasonably complained that there was no way to pay without compromising one’s privacy. Now there is. (I want enforcement to confirm that those paying are not being tracked. But given that constitutes fraud, it will be enforced.)
Rejecting tracking and paying is like rejecting ad-corrupted journalism and paywalls: it isn’t a principled stance, it’s just wanting free stuff.
While you're correct in the purest sense of what you say, this is an unfair realization of the exchange. It's very zoomed in to the micro level. The macro level is much more interesting.
It's not wanting free stuff. "Meta", and many many web services, literally scream "hey here's a free way to connect with your friends" or whatever their pitch is. And then operate in ways that violate the rights of the people they attract to use their service in the name of "more money" (note, more money because the reality of it is that Meta could easily offer privacy and still operate, just at lower profits). Offering a paid version, in the way that this does, is putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. It's holding you hostage and saying "you can use this the way we intend and we'll violate your privacy or you can pay for that to not happen".
When in reality the proper way to have such an exchange would be to say "Dear Users, the service we provide you costs $200 a year, however if you would like that to be free you can opt in to these incredibly hostile and violating contracts if you would like". But, we all know that no one would join that service because it's too honest about its exploitative nature and so the user-hostile nature of these companies goes on ad nauseam.
The price charged is prohibitively far above what is reasonable for avoiding ads, and Meta is quite aware of the advertising value of each subscriber that I can only assume they set the price so high as an intentional deterrent. They want as few people as possible to purchase this alternative, rather than simply to try to keep their revenue satisfactory either way.
In other words, they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads, but even if the GDPR does allow pay-or-OK consent schemes - this is itself an unsettled legal question - it’s far from clear that declining an unaffordably priced alternative counts as the kind of free consent the GDPR requires for consent-based processing. Lots of cases are still working their way through European DPAs and courts.
And, frustratingly, I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription. They just promise not to use the information for ads. They still allow themselves to process your data for many other purposes which under EU law should have a way to say no.
> they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads
Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier.
> I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription
This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy community. (Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.)
> Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier.
This action is explicitly about responding to EU GDPR regulations by trying to claim that people who decline a subscription are freely giving consent to the processing which the subscription would stop. From the official rulings which have so far been made about other companies by a few DPAs, it’s highly doubtful that the prohibitively high price for this tier will qualify as a viable enough alternative to the no-fee option to treat people’s consent to the processing as freely given.
> This is annoying.
This is Meta engaging in outright dishonest subterfuge, because the law with which they’re trying to fake compliance through this subscription option is not limited to advertising in any way.
> Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.
Not in my estimation. Too many professional and social circumstances in too many countries require using Facebook, Instagram, and/or especially WhatsApp for most people to avoid them completely.
For those of us (including me) who have never so far signed up with them, there’s another problem: they don’t provide a way for me to exercise my GDPR rights without being a subscriber, even though I strongly expect that they control and process much data about me uploaded by friends and family who are their users, and by Facebook tracking on other sites. (For those HN readers who realize that I’m American: I currently reside in and am located in Germany, so yes I have GDPR rights.)
To be honest, this is because society wants to monetize everything. Went to Whole Foods the other day and they expected me to pay for the basic human right of having food to eat. Society these days is sick. Bezos is a billionaire and we still have to pay for food?!
"a shocking infringement": services cost money. Building and operating a thing like fb / instagram / whatsapp is extremely expensive.
Not sure why EU is entitled to Meta's charity. They currently pay for the service via ads and data; they're now being allowed to choose to pay via ads/data or pay via subs.
If this is ruled illegal, the almost certain next step is everyone pays a fee or no / minimal use of the services allowed.
I don't think I've ever had $200 of value out of a social media site when I compare it to, say, Netflix during its prime, or YouTube Premium, both of which are in the same ballpark. Do people spend hours a day on Facebook and feel like they got good value out (I don't mean scrolling that people regret and would rather quit).
Now for communication I can understand the value, but I don't think Messenger or WhatsApp are ad supported directly like this so I would assume aren't covered by the subscription?
meh, I opted for the free version yesterday expecting better personalized ads and still getting the same irrelevant stuff as before. Now edge in the other hand... I've never accepted anything from them and are targeting me hard (can't find the opt-out button, the "new page" feeds are a sooo bs)
HS.fi had an article (in Finnish) about this today that said how it won't even increase privacy because the terms of service are completely unchanged and they'll want to keep collecting that data in case you stop paying for the ad-free version. The data they collect on you just won't be used to show you targeted ads while you pay.
> In effect, users are expected to pay up to €228 a year to preserve their fundamental right to privacy
No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".
Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.
Starbucks doesn't say "hey here's a free coffee", hand me the coffee, and then say I implicitly agreed to a 500 page lawyer-exploitable EULA by taking the coffee... and then later say "well, if you're enjoying that coffee you can give us $5 in cash instead.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
I have no insights into the per-user cost for Meta to run their platform, but I have a hard time imagining that's what this is based on. I think it's much more likely that users are paying a price based on "what Meta could be making if they sold their data".
Yes it'll actually have to more than double, since the high-value users (from perspective of advertisers) will more likely opt-in to the ad-free plan. The opportunity cost will be insane otherwise.
The level of entitlement here is outrageous. Social media monetizes via ads. Whether or not you like that practice, if you're going to force them to allow users to turn the ads off, how can you complain about them charging a monthly subscription?
Free access to a company's services is not a fundamental right.
No one is arguing for free access. What people are arguing for is respecting fundamental rights. It is not the job of users to create business strategy plans for an enterprise. The enterprise has the burden of proof to problem solve and find a monetization strategy that both is profitable and legal. Meta still can serve ads. Ads that are GDPR compliant. So either GDPR-applicable consent (informed, unambiguous, uncoerced, specific, withdrawble) for personalization or contextual ads that require little personal data processing to serve.
This policy very plausibly is not legal.
From the text of GDPR,
"(42) ... Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment."
Consent or else is not 'free choice'. Austrian DPA already ruled pay or okay is not GDPR compliant: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=DSB_(Austria)_-_2023-0.17... and noyb has signalled intent in fighting this policy. Furthermore, the remarks on which Meta relies given by CJEU were not binding.
They aren't going to get anywhere near 3 billion subscribers.
In everyplace where they can offer users a choice between the $200 subscription with no targeted advertising plan and the current no monetary cost but they use your data for targeted advertising plan most people will choose the latter.
The point is is that the value the company derives from targeted advertising against a given user is clearly an order of magnitude less than the headline $200 they ask for not being able to do it.
I just don’t use Meta products. It’s not as simple as paying to not watch ads, your privacy is not guaranteed. IMO paying for Meta is the same as paying to have a camera watching you 24/7 and being told it’s a privilege.
41 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 40.4 ms ] threadThis is wanting one’s cake and eating it too.
Facebook makes a product. Users use it. In the past, people reasonably complained that there was no way to pay without compromising one’s privacy. Now there is. (I want enforcement to confirm that those paying are not being tracked. But given that constitutes fraud, it will be enforced.)
Rejecting tracking and paying is like rejecting ad-corrupted journalism and paywalls: it isn’t a principled stance, it’s just wanting free stuff.
It's not wanting free stuff. "Meta", and many many web services, literally scream "hey here's a free way to connect with your friends" or whatever their pitch is. And then operate in ways that violate the rights of the people they attract to use their service in the name of "more money" (note, more money because the reality of it is that Meta could easily offer privacy and still operate, just at lower profits). Offering a paid version, in the way that this does, is putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. It's holding you hostage and saying "you can use this the way we intend and we'll violate your privacy or you can pay for that to not happen".
When in reality the proper way to have such an exchange would be to say "Dear Users, the service we provide you costs $200 a year, however if you would like that to be free you can opt in to these incredibly hostile and violating contracts if you would like". But, we all know that no one would join that service because it's too honest about its exploitative nature and so the user-hostile nature of these companies goes on ad nauseam.
And paying for a service does not mean that the relationship is not abusive. Meta would be happy to collect both money and data from all parties.
In other words, they want to pretend that they are allowing users to freely choose between paying or seeing their information used in ads, but even if the GDPR does allow pay-or-OK consent schemes - this is itself an unsettled legal question - it’s far from clear that declining an unaffordably priced alternative counts as the kind of free consent the GDPR requires for consent-based processing. Lots of cases are still working their way through European DPAs and courts.
And, frustratingly, I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription. They just promise not to use the information for ads. They still allow themselves to process your data for many other purposes which under EU law should have a way to say no.
Alternatively, they’re selling their product with an ad-supported tier.
> I don’t think they promise no tracking even with the subscription
This is annoying. But people are willing to pay to avoid ads. I imagine the wanting-free-stuff-masked-as-principles constituency is stronger in the privacy community. (Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.)
This action is explicitly about responding to EU GDPR regulations by trying to claim that people who decline a subscription are freely giving consent to the processing which the subscription would stop. From the official rulings which have so far been made about other companies by a few DPAs, it’s highly doubtful that the prohibitively high price for this tier will qualify as a viable enough alternative to the no-fee option to treat people’s consent to the processing as freely given.
> This is annoying.
This is Meta engaging in outright dishonest subterfuge, because the law with which they’re trying to fake compliance through this subscription option is not limited to advertising in any way.
> Also, the overlap of people who would pay for privacy and are on Facebook is small.
Not in my estimation. Too many professional and social circumstances in too many countries require using Facebook, Instagram, and/or especially WhatsApp for most people to avoid them completely.
For those of us (including me) who have never so far signed up with them, there’s another problem: they don’t provide a way for me to exercise my GDPR rights without being a subscriber, even though I strongly expect that they control and process much data about me uploaded by friends and family who are their users, and by Facebook tracking on other sites. (For those HN readers who realize that I’m American: I currently reside in and am located in Germany, so yes I have GDPR rights.)
Not sure why EU is entitled to Meta's charity. They currently pay for the service via ads and data; they're now being allowed to choose to pay via ads/data or pay via subs.
If this is ruled illegal, the almost certain next step is everyone pays a fee or no / minimal use of the services allowed.
> Meta is about to roll out ad-free subscriptions on Instagram and Facebook
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-pay-for-privacy-eu...
I don't think I've ever had $200 of value out of a social media site when I compare it to, say, Netflix during its prime, or YouTube Premium, both of which are in the same ballpark. Do people spend hours a day on Facebook and feel like they got good value out (I don't mean scrolling that people regret and would rather quit).
Now for communication I can understand the value, but I don't think Messenger or WhatsApp are ad supported directly like this so I would assume aren't covered by the subscription?
https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000009982537.html
No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".
Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
Free access to a company's services is not a fundamental right.
Estimated users of Facebook: 3 billion. Meta annual revenue: $120 billion
3 billion × $200 is significantly more than Meta's annual revenue.
There's paying for a service and there's being ripped off.
In everyplace where they can offer users a choice between the $200 subscription with no targeted advertising plan and the current no monetary cost but they use your data for targeted advertising plan most people will choose the latter.
Is this really true?
Or is the truth a "fee to stop seeing ads" and this article a big clickbait lie?
(Genuinely asking.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071472
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38068635