I think you'd have a hard time legally saying that they have to provide a service to users when that service is paid for by selling access to users via advertising, even if the user refuses to allow that access. It would probably qualify as "necessary for such performance".

Having the extra option to pay to remove ads (while I think this price is ridiculously excessive) is a pretty reasonable compromise. Although it also feels kinda icky in the sense that it means you're essentially turning privacy into a privilege for the wealthy. So I dunno, it's a tricky issue.

Techcrunch article is misunderstanding the meaning of freely given. It means not under duress and with full understanding. Paying for a service categorically doesnt contradict that.

However the odds of facebook explaining in plain english the egregious privacy breaches they do is unlikely so there's prob a get out there anyway.

Can't see how it breaches consent unless, as above they don't explain what they're doing to gather info for "personalised" ads.

Am lawyer, not gdpr /EU specialist though.

In fact, it’s not unlikely that the behavioural data of people who pay to opt out of being spammed with ads will be more valuable to data brokers.

True. This is why the AdNauseam extension doesn't simply "hide" ads, but it goes out of its way to actually simulate clicks for ALL ads, causing algorithms to be unable to more accurately profile you and making the pay-per-click model fall on its face. If everyone did that, advertisers would have to pay for completely meaningless clicks making it no longer worth it to advertise this way.

Though it's still not a solution to privacy, since it still gives some insight on your tastes by allowing them to know what websites do you frequently visit.

I haven't used anything Meta-related in almost 10 years and my life has failed to disintegrate. It's actually been lovely.

Even if you do not have a Facebook account, you are still being tracked through Ghost Profiles.

So no, you can not "just not use Meta".

They are so ingrained in the internet, that you can not get away, no matter hard you try.

As absurd as the price may seem, that is actually about how much money they make from selling user data. Of course, given their track record I don't feel inclined to trust this "pinkey promise" of not selling the data in some form anyways.

The thing is, using Facebook isn’t a right. They can charge for whatever, whenever, however they want. You agree to this when you sign up/access the site. You have the choice not to use it.

That’s what gets me with these comments/complaints. (Not trying to be mean). You don’t have to use facebook/Twitter/instagram etc. And the fact that people keep using these kinds of websites is beyond me, especially when they try to pull this kind of bs.

I would feel a lot better about it if the price was anything close to how much they actually make from people's data. Something like $30 per year according to Facebook themselves, in 2019.

But yeah, the notion that people should be entitled to all these online services completely free of charge while also not allowing it to be paid for through advertising is ludicrous.

The problem in this has never been (at any point) advertising.

Advertising is problematic too but not because of privacy issues.

The act of paying for something directly violates user privacy too. Modern businesses use Trust-based National Currency. They are REQUIRED to do so.

Thank you modern anti-money-laundering laws. /s

The best privacy defense is "Nobody Knows Who". Any company that profits explicitly from asking "Who?" is a problem.

The best software asks "Who?" as little as reasonably possible. Companies in general would profit significantly more from software as a service if they did not have to bear the burden of answering "Who?" every time the government asks, or bear the fears of being tied up in legal proceedings for ages for simply upholding the right of privacy for another.

Facebook and it's other related social networks is horrendous software. It's company is actively exploiting "Who?". Advertisements are a largely unwanted fact of life and people are beginning to draw lines and demand 'moderation of Advertisement placement, levels and density' as well as 'more privacy respecting' businesses and services.

TL;DR: If your business model is to invade people's privacy to sell advertising and you charge exorbitant prices to "respect my privacy" in any shape, form or manner; then you have no morals, ethics or scruples and you should fully expect to be censured and shunned by people who value those things in the companies they do business with.

in 2022, they made US$113bn from ads. They have approx 3bn users so thats about US$38 per user per year.

No one is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to run ads. But that they should be allowed to run highly specific and targeted ads is not by any means a forgone conclusion.

Television, newspapers, ads out in the “wild” and whatnot. All manage without individualizing ads. And Facebook could as well. But it’s more profitable to say to hell with our users privacy, let’s individualize the shit out of those ads.

That’s the problem.

How about no and my data is mine to start and end with. If they make money from me, they give me that money or the data is theirs.