Civil rights groups on Friday called on an EU watchdog to rule against Facebook owner Meta's scheme to let Europeans pay to opt out of data tracking, which they say violates EU law.
Does “pay for privacy” mean “pay to not be tracked on Facebook and Instagram” or “pay to not be tracked on the whole internet”? I can somewhat see a reasoning for the former, but the latter is absolutely inexcusable: Meta doesn’t own the internet, and it never should be allowed to.
Aside from the concept of selling Privacy being reprehensible…Meta has the nerve to propose this?!
If Meta can offer to sell Privacy with a straight face, what’s next?
Aldi offering a “platinum members lounge”?
A Comcast paid service where they call all your recurring bills and negotiate the inflated prices down?
How about an upcharge at the entrance to Walmart where they pinky promise to have an employee available to unlock the electronics case?
Meta, your brand awareness is astonishing. Meta couldn’t sell me privacy at any price, whatsoever; because I don’t have any historic evidence that Meta can deliver Privacy.
Imagine the scenario where you have to bribe (disguised as a subscription) each megatech company to respect your privacy. How many times and how much will you be willing to pay for something that should be your fundamental right?
Given Meta’s history, no one should misinterpret their intentions. They should be outright banned for these egregious transgressions.
I agree. Meta should be dismantled for this and many other reasons. So should all billion dollar companies btw. Broken up and banned from having the same board, owners or any cartel-furthering practices.
@tesseract from a market perspective, it’s an okay trade to pay for having privacy, as you still use their services. I also donated this month to my instance because those servers don’t get their uptime from the Holly Spirit. But this should come with an audit to check if they are really respecting the user privacy of the paying customers. Or better, some regulatory to figure out if the market price for privacy is justified or is it too big, compared to the amount of data created in a given period of time by the user and sold to the advertisers.
Not to mention, they should overhaul their data collection practices so that you only have your data collected while using the service. That means getting away with practices such as shadow profiles or pixel tracking.
Or they should just use other methods to make money with their service altogether.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
Privacy is a fundamental human right. Plain and simple.
Online, offline, doesn’t matter. No one should ever have to pay for it. Especially not to a surveillance company.
This is hilarious. Meta is embracing the mob methods more and more.
But what about wafd?
What is wafd?
Judging from the image, it’s the new subtext of Meta apparently.
Does “pay for privacy” mean “pay to not be tracked on Facebook and Instagram” or “pay to not be tracked on the whole internet”? I can somewhat see a reasoning for the former, but the latter is absolutely inexcusable: Meta doesn’t own the internet, and it never should be allowed to.
Aside from the concept of selling Privacy being reprehensible…Meta has the nerve to propose this?!
If Meta can offer to sell Privacy with a straight face, what’s next?
Meta, your brand awareness is astonishing. Meta couldn’t sell me privacy at any price, whatsoever; because I don’t have any historic evidence that Meta can deliver Privacy.
Imagine the scenario where you have to bribe (disguised as a subscription) each megatech company to respect your privacy. How many times and how much will you be willing to pay for something that should be your fundamental right?
Given Meta’s history, no one should misinterpret their intentions. They should be outright banned for these egregious transgressions.
I agree. Meta should be dismantled for this and many other reasons. So should all billion dollar companies btw. Broken up and banned from having the same board, owners or any cartel-furthering practices.
@tesseract from a market perspective, it’s an okay trade to pay for having privacy, as you still use their services. I also donated this month to my instance because those servers don’t get their uptime from the Holly Spirit. But this should come with an audit to check if they are really respecting the user privacy of the paying customers. Or better, some regulatory to figure out if the market price for privacy is justified or is it too big, compared to the amount of data created in a given period of time by the user and sold to the advertisers.
Not to mention, they should overhaul their data collection practices so that you only have your data collected while using the service. That means getting away with practices such as shadow profiles or pixel tracking.
Or they should just use other methods to make money with their service altogether.
@throws_lemy