Meta's pay-or-consent model under fire from EU consumer group

Meta has again come under fire for its pay-or-consent model in the EU. The complaint has come from the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), which has written to EU enforcement authorities about concerns that Meta's latest pay-or-consent policy might be infringing laws and fall foul of the Digital Markets Act (DMA.) The …

[Anonymous Coward]

Third Option

My observation is that Meta have left out the third option:

1) Pay a monthly subscription and be free of adverts;

2) Have a free account and we'll use your personal data to bombard you with adverts (that's what pays for the service);

3) Leave and you don't have to pay nor be bombarded with adverts.

I opted for #3 many years ago and haven't missed anything Facebook provided. I don't have 100's of online friends, but they're replaced by the 10's of friends I now have time meet in person.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Third Option

The best approach to Facebook is still:

You have 0 Friends

https://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/1hc2pe/south-park-you-have-0-friends-season-14-ep-4

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Third Option

"Have a free account and we'll use your personal data to bombard you with adverts"

Given that there's no option in person data for "If I see your advert I'll take extra care to avoid whatever it is you're trying to sell". Without that they're massively ripping off their advertising customers.

[Greybearded old scrote]

Re: Third Option

But you still get tracked, by every Faecesbook like button on the web.

Also Goggle anal-ytics, share with <whatever> etc etc etc.

[Rich 2]

Re: Third Option

That’s where Pi-Hole or some other traffic filter comes in

[Excused Boots]

Re: Third Option

"My observation is that Meta have left out the third option:

1) Pay a monthly subscription and be free of adverts;

2) Have a free account and we'll use your personal data to bombard you with adverts (that's what pays for the service);

3) Leave and you don't have to pay nor be bombarded with adverts.

I opted for #3 many years ago and haven't missed anything Facebook provided. I don't have 100's of online friends, but they're replaced by the 10's of friends I now have time meet in person.”

I’m really, really trying to understand why anyone would downvote this. It seems perfectly logical. Assuming that Facebook has some value to you, then the choice is, pay them actual money to compensate them for said value, or you pay them indirectly by they using your data. Or, option 3, walk away from the whole thing.

Unless, of course the one downvoter is either M. Zuckerberg; or someone so deep in the Facebook system world that they can’t understand anyone who would want to leave!

[Gene Cash]

Re: Third Option

We apparently have some kind of downvote bot. I've seen lots of unexplained single downvotes.

Anyway, I still get the boggle from idiot companies when I state I can't see whatever because I won't go to their FB page.

I've also gotten the boggle from companies that only have PayPal for a payment option when I inquire about their non-PayPal options.

Plus there's the companies that pop up a captcha when I go to pay on my shopping cart, and then they ask why I abandoned it.

Fucktards. Everywhere.

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Third Option

Trolling downvote/dislike bots, who don’t like what you write. Some seem to auto down vote anything you write these days.

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Third Option

As demonstrated by the above, and I predict this reply too.

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Third Option

and this one

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Third Option

.. and this one:

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Third Option

#3 here too. The fucking off of - agreed the pitiful - content moderation and fact checking was the last straw.

[alain williams]

Meta should consent or pay me

I have never had a FB/... account and do not use their services. However they have a "shadow account" that contains my personal information, they store this outside of the UK & EU, I have not agreed to them having my information, them taking it outside the UK, they have not told me what they are using it for.

Either:

• Meta should seek consent before they use my information -- clearly documented in the GDPR, or:

• Meta can pay me £1,000 per year to keep this shadow information. To be paid into my bank a/c not as credit to some service that I do not use.

[Guy de Loimbard]

Re: Meta should consent or pay me

I'd like to see that in action.

I'll pull up and sandbag and get the popcorn ready for a long drawn out wait for a response :)

Noble thought, but it's Meta, so you know what they think of you!

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: Meta should consent or pay me

£1,000 per year? You're selling yourself too cheaply.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Meta should consent or pay me

Earnings of meta are on the order of $20 per user per year.

[The man with a spanner]

Re: Meta should consent or pay me

Actually £20.....£25 a year would seem like a sensible amount to pay for the service. £60 per year is too much though.

Buying the unencumbered service or using the free one paid for by ads is a reasonable choice. One way or another the Zuck o berg gets paid and everyone should be happy.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: $20 per user per year

What are their earnings on shadow profiles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: $20 per user per year

"What are their earnings on shadow profiles?"

That is not public information as far as I know.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: $20 per user per year

I'm sure it's not. The question was rhetorical.

[Dan 55]

EU enforcement authorities already allow Pay or Okay

Here's Zeit as an example or if that doesn't work because of ad blockers then here's The Sun. The Sun falls under UK-GDPR instead of GDPR but there's no difference apart from Zeit removes some advertising while the Sun doesn't remove any.

Firstly it's difficult to find a difference in wording between those media sites and Meta's sites and secondly if other media sites are already doing it then why shouldn't Meta? The EU enforcement agencies and the ICO in the UK shouldn't have capitulated to the other media sites' demands as now there's no excuse they can use to stop Meta.

[heyrick]

Re: EU enforcement authorities already allow Pay or Okay

Yes, greedy bastards and brown envelopes come to mind.

It's not about advertising. It's about tracking and profiling, and by making this an argument about advertising they have neatly sidestepped the fact that there is a third option - to show adverts that are not personalised. You'll note that the Meta screenshot suggests that this will be an option "later" (when they think they've taken enough information, I guess).

I do not object to advertising. It's shit and it's annoying but I don't pay so it's the "payment" for using the service. What I object to is the amount of data collected, the complete lack of transparency regarding this data (what is actually collected, what conclusions are drawn, who is this then sold to) and the complete lack of ability to be able to access it. Have you ever asked Google to export your data from them? Did it include anything about "what we determined from your use of our services without telling you?".

We have already seen potentially faulty metrics covertly gathered and passed on to third parties having real world effects, like the roller coaster and car insurance. Sure, it's an extreme example, but I bet there are hundreds of thousands of scary examples, only we don't know and we can't find out.

This is the point that everybody in a position of power seems to be wilfully and irresponsibly ignoring. It's not about the advertising, it's about what goes on in the background.

[Cris E]

Re: EU enforcement authorities already allow Pay or Okay

What's funny is the implicit assumption many are making that you won't be tracked and traced if you do pay. I mean sure, they'll drop the visible ads, but there's no way you're going completely free once they have you as a paying customer.

[AbominableCodeman]

Re: EU enforcement authorities already allow Pay or Okay

As an added bonus they now have your payment card details to unequivocally identify you.

[Anonymous Coward]

no right to complain

it's meta's train set that they let you play with for free. well free as in you don't pay cash. a bit rich to then whinge like a baby because you don't like the free service because the nasty bully takes your sweeties. no one forces you to have a facetwit account. if it bothers you that much then leave. or pay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: no right to complain

"no one forces you to have a facetwit account. if it bothers you that much then leave. or pay."

Two points:

- This is not about advertising, but about collecting personal data (see comments above).

- Selling personal data without informed consent is a crime. Forcing "consent" to use a service is not legaly valid consent. And no, personal data are not legal tender and cannot be used as payment, just like your organs are not legal tender.

.

[AbominableCodeman]

Re: no right to complain

See mentions of shadow accounts above. You still get your data collected, even if you don't play.

[spold]

Typical average highwayman threat - Your money or your life....

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals

Both literally and morally.

A pox on all their houses.

[msknight]

You won't get ads...

...but they're still using your data. Just... not to serve ads... by them... on facebook.

This declaration has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

[X5-332960073452]

Responsibillity

They should take responsibility for the Ad's you are 'served'.

Most common place for malverts (malicious adverts) for the people I help.

Why does their "AI" (checked by a meatbag, no chance), not instantly ban any ad that tries to go full screen, usually the fake infection / tech help scam.