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

It’s not about the advertising. It’s that you have to pay money to opt out of their aggressive data collection. The advertising is just one thing they do with your data.

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 first sentence of the article.

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.

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

beyond how it infringes on them

I’m playing Devil’s advocate

Don’t it’s obnoxious and not insightful. It’s how teens test drive arguments without repercussions.

They can’t assign any concessions they wants that’s the entire point. You have rights you can’t sign away even if you want to. I mean dude you’re defending facebook, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy. Your assumption should be they are probably wrong until proven otherwise.

I never said anything of the sort and I don’t know why whether or not the service is mandatory matters. That isn’t the bar for us to have consumer/privacy rights.

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

You’re free to not own or use a car. Should we have no rights when it comes to cars as well?

You’re free to not use the internet. Should we have no rights online?

You are conflating a lot of different things here and I’m a little too busy at work today to completely disentangle it, but the short version is that none of us are ignorant about what “free“ means online. That is not the debate here so I’m not sure why you’re going off on that when I don’t even disagree there in the first place. It’s just not relevant.

This assumes everyone who values privacy can afford another $10mo sub in their life or that it should cost money in the first place. In an issue of consent that shouldn’t be the case.

Webbys are such pay to play trash now. I wonder what it was like at that time. Now they just spam me with mailers for some reason trying to get me to spend hundreds of dollars submitting podcasts I don’t even produce anymore and that haven’t had an episode in years. Pretty sure it’s just one of those “get all your friends and listeners to vote for you” worthless systems too.

I might’ve misremembered it then! Probably 25% of internet users. It was from the “enshittification” defcon talk

I don’t think that’s a very fair assessment. We are a lot more aware of what “free“ is now. We weren’t informed consumers and collectively are relatively more so these days, even if most people still choose to ignore the issue. Back then we didn’t know there was an issue. I know I sure didn’t know I was agreeing to let them scan my inbox.

I also think more than ever people are now questioning what free means. So I’m not really sure how one can argue we are conditioned to accept the price of “free” when more than ever people are questioning it and adopting things like VPNs and adblockers to reassert their privacy.

Reminder that 25% of Americans use an ad blocker, constituting the largest consumer boycott in history. It’s such a big problem that Google has been actively trying to thwart it. That doesn’t seem like conditioned (in their favor) behavior if you ask me.

Setting restrictions on what 2FA/authenticators we can use. I imagine it’s only a matter of time before Google functionally makes it so you can only use theirs when using their services.

Edit: I assumed it was some of the messages I’ve seen elsewhere, my mistake. I don’t need everybody repeating the same comment. Please read the responses before telling me the exact same thing over and over again guys lol

This is becoming a trend and I really don’t like it.

Oh trust me, not using them.

Life360 is the subject and the surveyor for this article so take it with a grain of salt. They want this to be normal. However, it does not change the fact that clearly Gen Z is more open to this than previous generations at least to some degree.

As a parent, I do plan on using the services, but definitely not daily and I want my kids to have a say in the matter. What’s important is they feel safe.

Short answer based on my recent foray into Linux: depends on the fork! Some keep more parallel, some break off into their own world and are unrecognizable next to their base distro.