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.”

    • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.mlEnglish
      9·
      7 months ago

      Not seeing ads for GEICO on your car’s dashboard doesn’t mean that Toyota isn’t gathering as much data as they can about you via the platform they built and then selling that information to GEICO.

      As well as information about who you are, Toyota can also collect your “driving behavior.” This includes information such as your “acceleration and speed, steering, and braking functionality, and travel direction.” It may also gather your in-vehicle preferences, favorite locations saved on its systems, and images gathered by external cameras or sensors.

      Some models of Toyota can also scan your face for face recognition when you enter one of its vehicles.

      Source

      • garrett@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        And that is totally unreasonable collection, of course. It’s also completely incomparable to pretending that Facebook is as necessary as a car (at least in America).

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          1·
          7 months ago

          If your bar is “we only have rights when it comes to things that we can’t live without“ then not only are you creating your own arbitrary standards that is not reflected in our society, but you should be angry if you think that’s how things work.

          You have rights dude. Stop trying to win an online argument/defending business in such a bizarre way. There are limits to what they can do whether they re essential services or not.

          Besides, you have kind of lost the thread here. It’s not about whether or not they can advertise or charge. It’s about how they collect and use your data in service of advertising (and more). It’s in the first sentence of the article.

          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.

          Facebook is free to have an ad tier and a pay tier. It’s about the data they collect and how it’s used.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      4·
      7 months ago

      What does the monetization scheme have to do with whether or not we have consumer and privacy rights beyond how it infringes on them?

      • garrett@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        The point was that it’s apples to oranges. Monetization is kinda the key issue here unless you’re ready to declare Facebook a utility and publicly fund it. Personally, I’d rather we be rid of it entirely.

          • garrett@infosec.pubEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            Of course ad-supported services are infringing on your privacy in a way but if you’re not ready to call Facebook a publicly-funded utility, it’s childish to act like it’s so essential that it should be entirely ad-free with no paid tier.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              1·
              7 months ago

              You are presenting a false dichotomy and ads do not have to infringe on your privacy to the degree Facebook does it. There are gradients.

              You’re reducing these arguments so much they’re losing the nuance that warrants the entire discussion. You’re also calling me childish to boot, which doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of this conversation

              • garrett@infosec.pubEnglish
                1·
                7 months ago

                That is a valid, nuanced take that this article and (seemingly) the legislation don’t get into.

                • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
                  2·
                  6 months ago

                  The first sentence of the article establishes my argument

                  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.

                  It’s the means of creating their targeted advertising that is in question. Not the act of advertising itself.

                  You’re arguing as if it says “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 having ads.” I encourage you to read the article If you haven’t already