There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

If you live in the EU - you may also be faced with this Meta prompt. Info in text.

If you, like me, live in the EU, Facebook is now entirely clamping down and forcing free users to make their personal data available for monetization.

Attempting to access any Facebook domain and perhaps also other meta products will redirect you to the following prompt with a choice between either accepting the monetization of your user data, or coughing up a region-dependent monthly subscription fee: base (for me ~10€) + an additional fee (~7€) for each additional facebook or instagram account you have.

Now, the hidden third option. At an initial glance, it seems like there is no other option but to click one of the buttons - however, certain links still work, and grant access to important pieces of functionality through your web browser.

If anyone has information to add regarding Facebook or Instagram, please do share it. I’ve only (begrudgingly) used the former up until now, but I know many others use Instagram and don’t feel like giving a single cent (nor their personal info) to Meta.

  1. www.facebook.com/dyi - perhaps most important of all, now is a good time to make a request to download your Facebook data. Don’t forget to switch to data for “all time” and “high quality” if you intend to permanently delete your account.
  2. www.facebook.com/your_information - here you can find and manage your information, but crucially also access Facebook messenger.
  3. The messenger app: Still hasn’t prompted me with anything, though I expect that will change in the not too far future.

Currently my plan is to use messenger to inform any important friends that I intend to leave FB, and where they’ll be able to reach me in the future.

logicbomb ,

You need to make a choice to continue using Facebook

This reminds me of the movie War Games, when WOPR says, “The only winning strategy is not to play.” The only correct choice to make here is to delete your Facebook account.

Iceblade02 OP ,

Indeed, I’d like to, and hopefully will be able to. Unfortunately it is basically the universal method of communication at my campus - unless you use instagram… or snapchat… :(

Hopefully it’ll be possible to get others to make the move, but I’m not really that important in social contexts, nor are most privacy-focused folks.

rtxn ,

The evil of the lizard is too great to resist. The only way to win is to deny it battle.

TheFriar ,

How anyone still has a FB account I’ll never understand—or, I should say, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the insane, “well I have nothing to hide!”/“anyone reading my information will be SO BOOORED LOLOLOL!” mindset and that actually gives 1/10000th of a shit about privacy.

ItsMeSpez ,

For me it is still holding on, barely, as a messaging app. I have a few friends and groups that just refuse to message on other things and that’s keeping me around. I’m tired of evangelizing better options.

Sir_Kevin ,
@Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I have friends like that. They never get a response from me.

lemmyvore ,

It pops up every once in a while for things like old classmates getting together. If I weren’t on it I wouldn’t know about it.

It’s also useful for local events like neighborhood festivals that don’t get posted on any other media.

Ilovethebomb ,

Most of my sports and social activities are organized through various Facebook groups, and I’d lead a rather boring life without it.

That’s why.

BellaDonna ,

I literally had a job that distributed our schedule via a Facebook group exclusively and required an account for requesting changes or interaction about the schedule.

Honytawk ,

You can easily counter that sentiment by asking them if they also leave their door open when they use a public toilet. Since they got “nothing to hide”.

TheFriar ,

“Anyone that wants to watch me pee is god be SOO BORRED LOLOL!”

Honytawk ,

police gets called

LemmyIsFantastic ,

Or stop caring about data being used for ads. Most people don’t 🤷‍♂️

smotherlove ,

Third choice: Delete your account and never look back.

A_Random_Idiot ,

Imagine how many artificially inflated egos would be deflated all at once if facebook/social media went away.

probably be one the greatest things to happen to humanity.

schnapsman ,

Isn’t that incredible? Turns out that connecting people to one another in this way fosters some healthy interaction for those who choose it but also amplifies loads of unhealthy bs. I’m one of those idiots who 15 years ago thought the internet and social media would bring about something of a second enlightenment, a golden area of progressivism, being well-informed, connected to one another in new and beautiful ways.

Mongostein ,

25ish years ago we all thought the internet would be a wonderful marketplace of ideas where people wouldn’t be judged by their age, gender, race or whatever, but on the merit of their ideas.

And it did feel that way for a while back when it took a bit of intelligence to get online. However, now that anyone can get online with just a few clicks the morons have learned how to amplify their moronity.

PieMePlenty ,

Its both a marketplace of ideas and the cesspool of moronity.

A_Random_Idiot ,

100% because of social media. see my reply to schnapsman

A_Random_Idiot ,

It would have been that. Or at least a lot more like that…

If social media hadnt been invented, and if social media hadn’t gamified human interaction with upvotes/likes/etc, which ended up doing nothing but creating a dopamine feedback loop that is directly responsible for the extremity of online discourse today.

Social media is also responsible for using its algorithms to link isolated village idiots and conspiracy nuts, and giving them secure echochambers with which to bounce off of eachother free of outside criticism or view, until they ended up completely disconnected from any hint of reality.

rchive ,

I mean, it sort of did, it’s just not quite that simple. A lot of amazing things have come about because of social media. So many artists able to reach people directly without needing gatekeepers like publishers. Movements able to be organized where previously those people would have never interacted.

freebee ,

Commenting this on a post about one of the new gatekeepers is quite ironic.

rchive ,

The route to getting something posted on Facebook or other social media involves 1 gatekeeper who barely involves itself. The route to getting a book or news article published involves more, and they micromanage the content much much more. Just compare what percentage of people have posted something on Facebook vs have had an article published by a newspaper or magazine.

freebee ,

You can post all you want, if you actually want to reach an audience you must comply with silly rules (try putting an innocent non sexualized nipple on an albumcover and posting it to facebook) and you have to pay for visibility because algorithm heavily favours money. On top it’s vendor locked-in, there are only very few networks with a very large userbase, and even fewer corporations behind them.

rchive ,

None of that affects people’s ability to disseminate information anywhere close to the constraints put on people by traditional publishing. Again, how many people have ever posted to social media vs how many people have ever published a book?

freebee ,

you’re disseminating into the void and this conversation we’re having is a fine example. The gatekeeper (in this case: facebook) determines who gets a very wide audience and who gets to scream into the void.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

When the “Subscribe” button is gray and the “Use for free” button is blue, you know something’s up 🤔

shasta ,

It’s because they make more money from your user data, but it also doesn’t cost you money

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

Probably because the lost revenue from not showings ads exceeds the monthly subscription cost.

WallEx ,

You think they make 10€ per user in ads? I don’t believe that, the ad market is very competitive and banner ads don’t pay well.

Syndic ,

Maybe, maybe not. But the UX pattern they use clearly indicates that they rather have users continue to use the adds version instead of getting 10 euros per month. And that’s certainly not because of the goodness of their heart but because it is better for them as a company. And “better for the company” pretty much always means “making more money”.

WallEx ,

I don’t know, I don’t even believe, that they are going to stop using your data, even if you pay. So I don’t really know what to think. Also im very happy, that I’m done with meta as a whole.

dwindling7373 ,

That pricing (or any pricing) is unsustainable, all it is there for is to give illusion of choice to try and comply with the law. Your data are useless if too many people choose to pay and Facebook dies, on the contrary the more people allows for refined monetization, the stronger Facebook’s business becomes (or get back to before GDPR status).

Syndic ,

Oh of course they will still use the data of paying costumers. I’m sure that data is more important to them then any add revenue.

JackFrostNCola ,

Also that is just money for serving you ads, i think the real money is advertisers buying your data.
How do they target you, are you the demographic they want to sell to, when are you active online, what do you look at, what are your interests, what values are important to you, etc.

b3nsn0w ,
@b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

youtube only makes around 2€ per user per month by the most optimistic estimates, and they serve full tv-like video ads which are also clickable and targeted, and a lot of them. that’s literally the final form of advertising and it still doesn’t reach a monthly 10€/user, the addressable market is just not that big.

the dark pattern is real though. they’re going for your data and they’re not doing it for money. make of that what you will (i certainly have ideas and they’re not pleasant)

WallEx ,

Also those are video ads, that get you waaaay more money, opposed to the banner ads on Facebook (at least some)

kumatomic ,

They also make a great deal of money using people’s user data to match them to pages that pay to promote and have their page shown to more people. It’s 14 bucks to have a single post “boosted” for a page otherwise your posts will be held at the bottom of the algorithm.

chiliedogg ,

If you give them access to your info, they can keep using it after you’ve stopped paying.

oce , (edited )
@oce@jlai.lu avatar

I’ve worked for a successful scaleup that was pouring millions into Google ads every month. I have no idea who clicks ads, but it worked for them.

greybeard ,

One thing nobody has mentioned here is that paying users devalue the ads for non-paying users. Paying users are more likely to have desposableincomee, and are more valuable to advertisers. If advertisers know that the only people being shown ads are those without the money to buy their products, they won’t be willing to buy the ad space.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

That’s a really interesting point-- I can see that being the case.

sndrtj ,

What’s absolutely scummy is that “laws are changing in your region” is not what happened. The law hasn’t significantly changed. What has changes is that the regulator is finally enforcing the law.

Benaaasaaas ,

Also said law doesn’t allow blocking access if you don’t agree to the tracking rules, so let’s see where this goes.

archon , (edited )

Law opens for supplier to charge money, if necessary to support the service, which is what Meta is doing.

However, fuck Meta.

chiliedogg ,

Honestly I don’t disagree with that bit.

A website shouldn’t be forced to operate at a loss, which is what Facebook would be doing if they couldn’t strip mine data OR charge access to use the service.

rchive ,

Shh, people don’t wanna hear that. Lol

Aceticon ,

The Law doesn’t care if any one company’s business model is viable and, Facebook being an American company which avoids taxes like crazy, EU politicians don’t care enough about them specifically to change said Law.

So ultimatelly and once they exhausted all legal recourse, Facebook have only two options: “comply” or “leave” (i.e. stop operating in the EU).

Somehow I suspect that selling non-personalized adverts will still make the EU market appealing enough for Facebook to operate in an that would allow them to comply with the local laws.

To me this looks like a play by Facebook to keep their higher revenue model going as long as possibly by breaking the rules and then relying on the slowness of regulators to keep going and any two-strikes policies to avoid big fines.

holdthecheese ,

That’s not a loophole, it’s a key provision of the law.

archon ,

True, edited.

Sterile_Technique ,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e05c7a80-d3a9-460e-bc93-47587cbfb96c.jpeg

Delete that garbage.

Bishma ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I swore off all Meta products before they were called Meta. One of the better decisions I’ve ever made.

Bazoogle ,

lol, saying “before they were called meta” as if that was a long time ago. That was 2 years ago.

bayank ,

Pepperidge farms remembers

LiamMayfair ,

I welcome this change. It makes it clear to the user in realistic terms how they want to engage with the site.

  • Pay up with your money
  • Pay up with your data
  • Don’t use Facebook

I despise Meta and all their products but they are entitled to charge people for them. Shit ain’t free to run, you know.

I’d much sooner they showed this banner and force people to make a decision than what they’ve been doing up until now, which is to “assume” everyone’s fine with their personal data being harvested and exploited without their knowledge or consent.

fuzzzerd ,

That assumes that because they’re paying they aren’t also tracking. They might not use it for ads directly but they’ll still sell it to others that will show you ads off Facebook.

FishFace ,

Facebook’s data is way more valuable to Facebook; it doesn’t sell data to third parties. If you think they’re going to sell the non-monetisable data to third parties, you have to believe they’re willing to introduce this (which is likely to be unpopular) in apparent compliance with data protection laws, while still flagrantly violating them in secret, without any of their many employees nor any of their partners’ employees blowing the whistle (and Meta as a company leaks all the time). If they were doing that, why would they bother setting up the fake “pay to not be tracked” flow, when they could pretend to honour people’s free requests not to be tracked?

spraynpray ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    FishFace ,

    That information is not Personally Identifiable Information and so it’s out of scope of privacy protecting law like the GDPR and is probably not what anyone should be worrying about when it comes to data companies.

    For those not familiar with the terminology, this means that an advertiser may receive information like, “there exists a person who is 25-30 years old, likes animals, is politically left wing, lives in Michigan” etc - they don’t get that person’s name or other details that allows the advertiser to go away and advertise to you separately. Nor does it allow the government to find out that you like animals by grabbing the traffic.

    spraynpray ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    FishFace ,

    Thanks for this detail - I didn’t know it included IP address and accurate Lat/Long (though I guess only if you enable location services)

    I agree that that would be very de-anonymisable and probably does fall under the remit of GDPR etc.

    In the present context, I think whether or not Meta is using such granular data for real time bidding currently, they’d be arguing that all the RTB data is sufficiently covered by their privacy policy. But this new dialog says “your data won’t be used for ads” which categorically rules out this possibility. I don’t doubt that Meta could be breaking the law where they have a legal argument they can use to claim they aren’t - what I do doubt is that they are breaking the law when all it would take is a single leak to demonstrate that they are lying in their privacy policy. 4% of global revenue is not to be trifled with!

    helenslunch ,
    @helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

    why would they bother setting up the fake “pay to not be tracked” flow

    They didn’t. That was not an option.

    LWD , (edited )

    deleted_by_author

    •
    thanks_shakey_snake ,

    Did you omit option 3 for brevity, or because you think it’s not a valid option?

    LWD , (edited )

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Bazoogle ,

    Offline activity stays offline if it never goes online. If you don’t have a facebook account, then your probably have thousands of facebook accounts. It will generate an identity for each unique advertising ID you use, and you can always generate new ones in most devices.

    Honytawk ,

    Those accounts get combined through fingerprinting and other dark systems.

    tabular , (edited )
    @tabular@lemmy.world avatar

    Don’t use Facebook is the best answer but if you must then the next best option is:

    • Choose a better Adblock

    You don’t owe your enemy anything. Stop using spyware as a business model.

    Thorny_Insight ,

    Yeah, even getting them to display this banner is a victory in itself.

    cley_faye ,
    • Pay up with your money

    More like give us money, while also paying up with your data, that we won’t use for tracking, only for resell to people that will sell us back tracking details in a maybe not currently illegal way. Also we also are the “people” that will buy the info and sell back the tracking.

    CrapConnoisseur ,

    Fun fact: In Illinois we actually got pretty nice checks from Facebook over them violating a biometric law the state has. I believe most of us in the class action lawsuit got around $300 each.

    lostmypasswordanew ,

    The text is also incredible misleading. The data will still be harvested and monetized, just not for ads.

    hightrix ,

    Even that claim I find dubious. Yes, your data won’t inform targeted ads on Facebook, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be used for targeted ads elsewhere on the internet.

    Honytawk ,

    And it most certainly will still be used to make general prediction for the rest of the population

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    this has to be illegal.

    like, no, seriously. i’m not a lawyer but i was working on a (since failed) startup in 2018 and distinctly remember how much headache the gdpr caused. literally one of the main things was that you cannot coerce users into consenting to data processing, or make features conditional to them. the gdpr makes a distinction between processing you do to perform a contract (that’s why no one asks for your consent for processing your email address to log you in, that’s implied) and processing you do for other reasons, which require user consent (that’s why everyone asks if they can spam you on the same email – it doesn’t matter that your email address is already on their server, processing it for marketing reasons requires consent of the data subject). opting into these kinds of processing needs to be granular, if it’s not they lose the validity of your consent.

    i seriously hope facebook gets slapped so hard over this that no one ever thinks about doing this again. “paying with your data” should never be a thing in any society that calls itself civilized.

    nothingness ,

    like, no, seriously.

    What does “like” mean here? What’s it for?

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    flair, mostly. lol

    joel ,

    It’s how people have been talking for, like, 20 years now at least

    nothingness ,

    Rather, fucked american english. Like, fucked american english. Like, fucked. Like, like! Like!

    JonEFive ,

    Assuming you’re not a native English speaker. It’s a filler word. It doesn’t really mean anything, it’s used more to communicate tone.

    nothingness ,

    Being native doesn’t make one being able to speak properly.

    buddascrayon ,

    I don’t think you understand how this works. I’m not the biggest fan of Facebook but even I know they’re not a charity they’re not a governmental entity. They’re out there to make a profit and if they can’t make a profit on their ad revenue then they have to make a profit in another way via a subscription service. So they’re literally giving you the option to either continue using them with ads or continue using them as a subscription service. Your other option is to completely delete your Facebook. I don’t see the problem here. You aren’t entitled to a Facebook page, no matter how useful it is to your personal life.

    Edit: a word

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it’s on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that’s not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.

    it’s not about entitlement, it’s about playing fair. removing the option to “pay with your data”, and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that’s on them, it’s their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.

    and if we’re being realistic, they’re not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that’s what makes this about coercion – if they didn’t have the option to coerce people (and i’m fairly sure they don’t have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn’t be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you’d probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it’s facebook so they’d probably still try to track you).

    buddascrayon ,

    Every argument you make here is completely silly.

    This is a for-profit company and it has always been a for-profit company. They have no obligation to host you on their site and they can stipulate any conditions they like. If they want to make it a choice between paying a subscription fee or you consciously acquiescing to their collecting your data and advertising to you using that data, then that is 100% their right. Equally you have the right to opt out by closing your Facebook page and deleting all of your data on their site. I will reiterate, you are not entitled to a Facebook page!! This is not right, it’s a privilege granted to you by this greedy-ass corporation in exchange for monetary compensation, either through targeted ad revenue or a subscription fee. Deal with it.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    then don’t host the site if they don’t want to. or charge people for shit if they want to. i’m not asking for them to not do that, i’m asking for one thing and one thing only: don’t make service, free or not, conditional to consenting for data processing not related to providing that service. that shit, to my best knowledge, is illegal in the eu, and it’s for a damn good reason.

    facebook is not entitled to a profit either just because they’re for-profit. they need to earn it. and no, they don’t have a right to take a “whatever means necessary” approach on it – just like a company cannot legally rob people, or cannot legally entice minors into gambling addictions to make that money, in the eu it also cannot coerce people into giving up their personal data just so it can then profit off of that either. consent for that needs to be given willingly, without pressure, and without deception. why is this principle so hard to understand?

    you paint some ridiculous strawman arguments here in your efforts to lick the zuck’s boots, but i never once asked for facebook to continue giving their service for free if they don’t want to. the only thing i said is “paying with your data” is not a valid idea under the gdpr (and honestly, it shouldn’t be a thing in any civilized country.) if facebook relies on it, tough shit, their options are to figure out an alternate revenue stream or go out of business. that’s how it works for every other business as well.

    buddascrayon ,

    Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you. The other option is to completely close your Facebook account and delete all of your data on their servers. An argument can be made that they should make it easier to remove all of your data and several people that I know have made that argument. But other than that I don’t see anything they are doing as being illegal, in the EU or otherwise. Sure the way they presented is a pretty scummy but what do you want? It’s Facebook and it’s run by greedy corporate dick heads. If you don’t like it delete your Facebook profile.

    I also find it hilarious that you don’t think they have lawyers who specialize in European Union law that don’t know exactly what the fuck they’re doing. This is a multi-billion dollar company, they can afford the best goddamn lawyers.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you.

    right there. you’re a parody of yourself lmao.

    a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it’s worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that’s just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.

    you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you “don’t see it”, playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?

    buddascrayon ,

    Read carefully:

    You 👏 do 👏 not 👏 require 👏 a 👏 Facebook 👏 page 👏 to 👏 live.

    It is the very definition of superfluous luxury service. Just delete your page and be done with it.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    Read carefully:

    You 👏 cannot 👏 make 👏 personal 👏 data 👏 the 👏 price 👏 of 👏 a 👏 service.

    It’s literally that simple. This is not about whether the product is essential or not, it never was. It’s whether this business practice is legitimate or not. The GDPR clearly believes it’s not and it’s for a reason.

    If you do not need a facebook page to live, why provide it for free at all? Just make people either pay or delete their page. Do not bribe them with free shit to manipulate them into giving up their data. That’s all there is to it.

    buddascrayon ,

    Informed consent. It’s right there in the text of the law.

    gdpr.eu/article-5-how-to-process-personal-data/

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    And you have a right to object to that.

    gdpr.eu/article-21-right-to-object/
    gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requiremen…

    Threatening to disable a user’s means of communication as retaliation for an objection is antithetical to Article 21 of the GDPR, and goes directly against Recital 42. Removing your facebook page is a detriment. If there is a detriment to not consenting, consent is considered invalid, therefore facebook has no legal basis to process the data of anyone who clicked “use for free” on the prompt in the original post.

    buddascrayon ,

    If your only means of communication is Facebook, then that is an absolute failure of your government and society and you have much bigger fish to fry than Facebook’s shitty ad policy.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    you’re just hell-bent on missing the point, aren’t you?

    just stop. your idea that the loss of a facebook account is not a detriment will never stand up in court, nor should it.

    buddascrayon ,

    LoL, it’s never going to make it to court. 🤣

    You people are hilarious.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    at this point i genuinely believe that you’re just trolling. some companies like sony and apple absolutely do have this level of bootlickers who constantly move goalposts and try to convince people how they are ackshually right to do their extremely anti-consumer moves. but facebook? give me a break lmao. but even for a troll it’s such a stupid hill to die on

    i believe we adequately explored why your idea that corporations have the right to coerce people into giving up their data is idiotic. so idk, keep trolling and insert your next goalpost below this line:

    buddascrayon ,

    I’m not trolling but you can think what the hell you want, I don’t really give a shit.

    I don’t see it as coercion because Facebook is not a necessary service. And I think everyone here who is tearing their hair out and screaming about how “illegal” this new policy is are being overly dramatic.

    It’s just as simple as that. Oh, and my personal hope is that the new policy will encourage people to delete their Facebook. I would love to see the site go up in flames like Twitter is currently doing. So you thinking I’m some kind of sycophantic fanboy of Zuckerberg and his “metaverse” is quite hilarious to me. 🤣

    Aceticon ,

    Your thinking is so pinned-down by business-centric presumptions it’s ridiculous.

    The Law doesn’t give a shit about any one company’s chosen business model, otherwise Murder would be legal as long as it was done by employees of an incorporated “Murdering Services” company.

    Further, Facebook is an American company which avoids tax like crazy, so in Europe even politicians don’t give a shit about their business model, which means these Laws were not even adjusted to account for Facebook’s business model when they were created.

    Facebook’s business model and even survival as a company are wholly irrelevant: the Law is the Law, and Facebook either obbey it or they stop operating in the Jurisdictions whose laws they don’t want to obbey - ultimatelly, all legal recourses exhausted, “comply” or “leave” are their only two options.

    JonEFive ,

    And I don’t think you understand the problem. Nothing is preventing Facebook from displaying ads. Facebook’s issue is collecting user data and using it to directly target ads. They can make it so that a user can opt out of personalized ads and still show ads to that person. Companies would still pay to display their ads, perhaps not at the same rate but that doesn’t mean Facebook would be losing money by serving those users.

    Let’s not act like Facebook is going to go bankrupt if some of their users opt out of data collection and targeted ads.

    buddascrayon ,

    Facebook’s issue is collecting user data and using it to directly target ads.

    Literally nearly every website on the internet does this. Even the ones you pay a fee to subscribe to.

    You have the choice to close your account with Facebook if you don’t like their policy. Again, this is a completely for profit company, they have no obligation to host you on their site.

    JonEFive ,

    Literally nearly every website on the internet does this. Even the ones you pay a fee to subscribe to.

    Are you even a little familiar with GDPR?

    Nobody is acting like they have a right to Facebook in this thread. Likewise, nobody is saying that Facebook shouldn’t be trying to make money. The issue at hand isn’t the choice between a fee and ads. The issue is that you have to pay to opt out of targeted advertising and that they’re using dark patterns to encourage people to consent to targeted advertising.

    So the suggestion above that this may be illegal is accurate. You’re so focused on a person’s ability to not do business that you’re ignoring that there are laws regulating this type of behavior.

    SkepticalButOpenMinded ,

    I would love for FB to be smacked down hard by the EU, but isn’t this just the inclusion of a new option that didn’t exist before, I.e. the subscription? If you push the right button, isn’t that the status quo that you’ve been using all along without any other option? I don’t understand how giving more options is more coercive than before.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without “paying for it with your data” at all.

    and if that’s not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that’s alright. there’s nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i’m not a lawyer, but i’m pretty sure that’s illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don’t consent for unrelated data processing. they’re not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don’t want to share their data.

    that’s the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.

    Globeparasite ,

    Yeah I really hope the EU smack’em down. Asking users to pay a fee only because their countries law limit an illegal practice is astonishing

    AeonFelis ,

    I trust that Facebook’s lawyers are payed enough to make sure that this is technically legal. These laws always have loopholes.

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s a reaction to Facebook methods being deemed illegal in Europe. Although this does not mean than the new model is illegal, it’s an interesting sample of Facebook not always being right even though they have good layers. Both Facebook, Google and many other big tech, operate on the edge of what is legal and often on the other side of it, because it can be profitable enough to just pay the fine if it turns out to be illegal.

    This last move, I believe, is more of a statement than it is an actual change.

    AeonFelis ,

    Oh, yea. I can believe that these lawyers checked it out and determined that it may be illegal, but more like a “pay a fine that’s the equivalent of a bubblegum wrap when scaled down to regular people money” illegal and not “shut down the company and place the CEO behind bars” illegal.

    Now, if it was Xwitter, I could totally see Must ignoring all his lawyers and just YOLOing it.

    b3nsn0w ,
    @b3nsn0w@pricefield.org avatar

    i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn’t really last)

    Gestrid ,

    How much you wanna bet your info will still be used for ads even if you subscribe?

    PeleSpirit ,

    They’re actually holding your friends and family hostage, make plans to get them to safety.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    That's, uh, a little bit hyperbolic.

    admin ,
    @admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

    I’m just glad they didn’t use the term Literally.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    "actually" serves the same purpose in their sentence.

    admin ,
    @admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

    Damnit, you’re right.

    PeleSpirit ,

    Is it? You have to pay or give up all of your rights to stay in contact with your friends and family. What would you call it? Glad to see pro-facebook people here on lemmy, there’s dozens of you.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    Lol for the record pal, Facebook can get fucked. I haven't used it in years. Maybe don't assume someone's stance just because they said you were being hyperbolic - which you're still being.

    admin ,
    @admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

    give up all of your rights to stay in contact with your friends and family

    You’re making it sound line Zuckerberg has your family locked in a basement. If that’s the case, maybe you should go to the police, rather than complain about it on Lemmy.

    On a more serious note: if you’re one of the family members that is “only” reachable on meta, you’re part of the problem. If you want to be part of the solution, tell people where else they can reach you, then delete Facebook.

    petrol_sniff_king ,

    So, just excommunicate everyone who won’t go through the trouble of emigrating elsewhere. This is practical to you?

    admin ,
    @admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

    What is practical is that they don’t need to “emigrate”. They can stay on Facebook for all I care. But if they want to stay in touch, they just have to add me in 1 out of several apps.

    Like I said, you can stay on Facebook and be part of the problem, or you can leave and be part of the solution. The more people who do it, the easier it will be be for the remainders.

    kamenlady ,

    Not really, like, you can’t communicate with your family. In my case, i live in Germany, but my family lives in Brazil. It’s the only thing keeping me on Facebook, until now.

    Thank God my family switched to WhatsApp for all family stuff. Since there are also family members in Colombia & USA, we have to keep a fixed online place, so we can communicate quickly.

    WhatsApp is owned, by meta, just like Instagram. So it is rather when and not if we’ll start seeing ads everywhere.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    Yes, really. Your family can find any number of other ways to communicate. Facebook does not have a monopoly on international communication.

    kamenlady ,

    I know, but the problem is to convince everyone to use something different. 70, 60, 50 ,40, 30 year olds ( i think anyone up to 30 is much more open and used to deal with software ) a plenty, living in different countries.

    I really tried.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    That's not Facebook's fault. You can't say that a service is holding people hostage when the actual situation is that those people aren't interested in trying other services.

    schnapsman ,

    It may not be fb’s fault directly, but they hold the keys to an enormous resource which should be properly regulated. Telling op to just make the choice ignores the structural issue at hand. It’s a bit like saying if you don’t like all the problems of your country, just emigrate. That’s everyone’s choice, but it isn’t practical as a general solution. Emigrating in a digital sense is far easier, but do we wait for these common goods to be enshittificated and reinvented or can we skip some suffering and seize control already.

    iAmTheTot , (edited )
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    Lol my guy, I have actually completed an emigration process. Comparing it to finding a different free communication service is fucking bonkers. Facebook doesn't hold the keys to anything. If the users leave, they have nothing. Finding a replacement is practical and its not anything like emigrating to another country, holy shit.

    schnapsman ,

    My brother in Christ, finding a different service isn’t the difficultly. It’s moving everyone else. Fb holds the keys to a network of literally billions of ppl, which for many is the only feasible way of keeping in contact with their loved ones. Yes if everyone just left the enshittificated network suddenly and all went to the same place… but you need incentives, alternatives and coordination. “if everyone would just…” could solve a lot of problems, but we need to find realistic pathways to get there. Also your tone sucks, maybe open a window and let some fresh air in. I’ll do the same.

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    moving everyone else.

    I will direct you to the point at which you entered this convo.

    That's not Facebook's fault. You can't say that a service is holding people hostage when the actual situation is that those people aren't interested in trying other services.

    It is asinine to blame Facebook for checks notes your cousin's tech illiteracy.

    petrol_sniff_king ,

    Are you uncomfortable with metaphors or what?

    • If I have a Facebook account,
    • but I don’t want a Facebook account.

    How would you describe this?

    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    I don't know, maybe silly? Why do you have an account that you do not want?

    helenslunch ,
    @helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

    Not really, like, you can’t communicate with your family.

    LOL that is the fault of your family, not Meta

    soulfirethewolf ,

    Lol the wording and design of it all. Subscribe to use without ads, picture of a credit card. Versus Use for free with ads, picture of a shooting star:

    Discover products and brands through personalized ads, while using your Facebook account for free.

    Plus the little “your current experience” highlighted in green. And finally “use for free” highlighted in blue.

    They really want you to go with the second option so they can try to prove to the court that people want free stuff. When most of them were likely unconsciously coerced into it.

    Toribor ,
    @Toribor@corndog.social avatar

    The big mean regulator is trying to make us charge you money. Click here to pay up or click here to stay free.

    Hamartiogonic ,
    @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

    Dark pattern of the week: button colors.

    Can you guess which button Meta really wants you to press?

    mannycalavera ,
    @mannycalavera@feddit.uk avatar

    LOL why are people using Facebook?

    antonim , (edited )

    To communicate with people, to follow various pages and groups that notify me of the current events regarding the topics that interest me, to buy and sell stuff in some groups, etc. At least in my case.

    BigDaddySlim ,
    @BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world avatar

    I use it for one single purpose, browsing marketplace. I look for local used game stuff and that’s really it. If something peaks my interest I have my girlfriend message them since she uses messenger, I refuse to have it on my phone.

    Even then, I’m using Firefox with UBO so even if they do use my browsing data for ads, I ain’t seeing them anyway.

    Turns out you can in fact, cuck the Zuck

    scytale ,

    Don’t forget to use a facebook container on FF as well.

    ubermeisters ,
    @ubermeisters@lemmy.world avatar

    Piques* your interest

    Just a friendly FYI, could be voice text issue idk no shade

    BigDaddySlim ,
    @BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world avatar

    Actually no I’m just horribly illiterate 😂

    ubermeisters ,
    @ubermeisters@lemmy.world avatar

    Well, now you’re a touch closer to where it sounds like you’re trying to be!

    hayes_ ,

    It’s okay. I’ve misspelled “peek” as “peak” multiple times in the last week.

    English just be like that.

    Lamb ,

    You’re an icon. 🥰

    Ilgaz ,

    Firefox with the right extension can do wonders but for Facebook, it is like trying to save yourself from an atomic bomb with a shield made from led. They hire the best developers out there including OSS people to get your personal data one way or another. The day I learned advertisers abuse html5 canvas using miniscule differences between CPUs, I understood the money and development involved.

    militaryintelligence ,

    Memes

    helenslunch ,
    @helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

    Because my friends and family, unfortunately use Facebook. Moreso IG these days actually. And if I’m not on there I get left out of fun activities.

    Jezebelley ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    helenslunch ,
    @helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

    There aren’t if they don’t use those other ways. Shocking, I know.

    victorz ,

    Recently uninstalled:

    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Twitter/X
    • Reddit

    I feel free. My phone feels lighter, almost. My brain feels lighter.

    BonesOfTheMoon ,

    Same! I am enjoying the fediverse as a largely nontoxic replacement.

    victorz ,

    Agreed. It’s not too mainstream (yet) so not too much drivel has started seeping through lol. Here’s hoping it’ll stay this way. Feels very wholesome so far! Feeling at home already.

    lemmesay ,
    @lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    don’t forget to delete the accounts too! I’ve seen people just deleting the app and thinking their account is gone too.

    victorz ,

    Very good tip! To be honest, I’m not ready to delete the accounts yet. I’ll just run the services on my computer in containers (Firefox) and with μBlock Origin, so there’s minimal impact of this change for me.

    But it does feel very nice not to be able to do much when I pull out my phone as a reflex. I feel limited in a positive way. Much rather be talking to you fine folk than the drivel I was often interacting with on Reddit. 😁

    zAkk ,

    “It’s free and always will be”

    Nobsi ,
    @Nobsi@feddit.de avatar

    It is free. You are not paying. You couldnt even get money for your information so its not like youre selling it

    the_of_and_a_to ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Nobsi ,
    @Nobsi@feddit.de avatar

    Where can i sell my data? I want money.

    isVeryLoud ,

    Go fill some surveys for Google Play Store credits or something.

    There are services out there that will pay you (either real cash or with points) to fill out surveys all day. They’ll pay you less than they’d pay someone like Facebook though, since people are more truthful on these platforms than when filling out these surveys.

    Nobsi ,
    @Nobsi@feddit.de avatar

    They dont want my data, they want to ask me dumb questions. And they dont pay

    ILikeBoobies ,

    surveys.gobranded.com

    There are tons of sites for this, it was a lot more popular a decade ago before sites realize they could just steal it

    Int_not_found ,

    You couldnt even get money for your information

    Well, you could. Taking part in surveys in exchange of monetary compensation is a side hustle for many.

    And on the other side is sourcing data a huge expense for many research endeavours.

    That’s why everybody is buying from Google & Facebook. Because they offer it for relative low cost.

    Aceticon ,

    Only if you think your time and personal information are free.

    You might want to work on your self-worth and business sense if you think that.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •