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.

hubobes ,

Isn’t this just an additional paid option and the ad option is what everyone already had and everyone outside the EU still has?

Ilovethebomb ,

Yup. Basically, you need to enable ads to use the free, ad supported platform.

Iceblade02 OP ,

No. Where I live it has previously been possible to opt-out of personalized advertisements in favor of generic ones. That has now been removed.

hubobes ,

That option is still there for me (in addition to the new option to pay) in the Instagram app, in the settings there is an ad settings option which sends you to the website where you can configure that.

The circled setting, the other one is the one at the top of the list

heygooberman ,
@heygooberman@lemmy.today avatar

I recently discovered Pixelfed and Friendica on the Fediverse. They are the equivalent to Instagram and Facebook, respectively. Perhaps now would be a good time to migrate over to those platforms?

ahriboy ,
@ahriboy@kbin.social avatar

Just give them a try!

spiderman ,

will mainstream public make a move though? it will be great if my friends make a move to pixelfed but they just won’t.

don ,

Any time sooner than later is a fantastic time to have nothing at all to do with facebook.

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

Except they’re both kinda trash and no one you actually know IRL is on there. Just a bunch of strangers.

heygooberman ,
@heygooberman@lemmy.today avatar

That’s true, and as with any networking platform, whether that be a social media site or a messaging app, who you know and how many of them are on the platform is a strong determining factor in whether you join that platform or not. For now, I just have an account set up on both of those sites, just in case, but I’m not holding my breath for any of my close friends to join anytime soon.

InfiniteFlow ,
@InfiniteFlow@lemmy.world avatar

Yup. Got it last week. Found this shit so disingemuous it almost pissed me off more than the privacy violation itself. I dont use any of Meta’s stuff except for WhatsApp out of necessity (some groups from the kids’ school), but i keep getting dumped into FB by busineses that dont have a proper webpage…

NumbersCanBeFun ,
@NumbersCanBeFun@kbin.social avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    iAmTheTot ,
    @iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

    People said the same thing about twitter. People paid.

    TheEntity ,

    It's not about getting people to pay. It's about coercing them into giving their explicit consent. Yes, "coercing" and "consent" in the same sentence, let that sink in.

    confusedbytheBasics ,

    You choose to visit Facebook. They’ve always provided services funded by your data. Now you get to choose between that model or compensating them directly.

    Where does the coercion come in?

    PS, I hate Facebook and don’t use it in case that matters somehow.

    TheEntity ,

    EU recently accused them of not asking for data processing consent properly. This seems to be their response.

    And same here, mate. No FB in sight for me either.

    sitzathlet ,

    This exactly. Facebook can only advertise to EU users with targeted ads if they explicitly opt in. The paid version only exists to give us a “choice”, making targeted ads legally acceptable as we now have an alternative by paying for the service. German newspaper sites have been applying this practice for quite a while now. Those that get fined are only those that ise the wrong legalese.

    confusedbytheBasics ,

    I’m still curious where coercion comes into it?

    TheEntity ,

    Let me rephrase to avoid this hyperbole. I mean that the users are presented with two options: one being pretty much bonkers and one being agreeing to the terms. FB was seemingly unwilling to make it a clear yes/no question it is (or should be according to GDPR) everywhere else and decided this manipulation is much more likely to get them the "yes" answers.

    confusedbytheBasics ,

    ++ Totally. 10€ a month can’t be close to the value of the data. If the cost was actually based on the value of the data it might be a valid choice.

    Bazoogle ,

    The value of the data gets tricky fast. If they made everyone pay $10 for the service, they would make less money. They would make less money because fewer people would use the service. To offer it for free means more people would use it. While each person may provide less than the subscriber, the masses of the free users makes more money than the subscriber.

    To profit more from free users, you just have to have enough people willing to use it for free, and wouldn’t pay for it, to where their revenue exceeds that of the $10 plus the added cost to run the service with more users using it.

    Just for easy numbers, let’s say a free users makes Meta $1.00 a month. If there is a group of 20 people who use meta, and only 1 of those 20 people is willing to pay $10, then the paid service would make them $10 where the unpaid service would make them $19. Obviously super simplified math, but honestly the number of people that would pay for Facebook is probably a lot less than 1 in 20.

    I am not saying $10 is a fair price, but rather it’s not a simple task to pick a fair price. Not that meta wants a fair price anyway.

    FrederikNJS ,

    You’re absolutely correct… However it will be very interesting to see how this doesn’t violate the GDPR… recital 42 says:

    “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.”

    Link with more details: gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/

    Withdrawing consent in this case causes the detriment of having to either pay or lose access to the service… So this clearly isn’t “freely given” consent.

    Bazoogle ,

    They cannot force meta to give their service for free. If they did that, then they could do it to every online service ever. Services cost money, so either it comes from data collection and ad revenue, or a subscription (or in Meta’s case, data collection and subscription). To force them to let users use the service without data collection or ads would mean forcing them to give away their service for free. Regardless of if you like meta, you cannot deny the fact it costs a shit ton of money to keep the service running. Obviously they make a shit ton of money^2^, but to attempt to force them to provide it for free makes no sense.

    FrederikNJS ,

    The GDPR does not in any way disallow Facebook from running ads, regardless of the users consent. But if the user doesn’t consent, Facebook can’t run targeted ads on the user.

    Grabbels ,

    It’s never been free. We’ve always paid with our data but now they’re being extremely forward about it in hopes to comply with EU laws.

    helenslunch ,
    @helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

    He doesn’t think that, and he doesn’t want them to do that. He wants them to keep the ads.

    terminhell ,

    There’s a missing third option: Don’t use it at all.

    reverendsteveii ,

    y’all I think that we might finally be leaving the era of the internet where everything is free. overall, I think this is a good thing. the problem is that unless there’s legislation preventing them these companies are absolutely gonna double dip; they’ll charge you a fee and then sell your data anyway.

    BrowseMan ,

    Yeah that what I tought: if I pay, what is my guarantee you won’t collect and sell my info on top of that?

    verysoft ,

    Why even use facebook products

    doeknius_gloek ,

    Oh no! Anyway…

    kokesh ,
    @kokesh@lemmy.world avatar

    Same on IG

    Phanatik ,

    If only I still had a Facebook account that required me to use this awful website.

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