Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Wednesday July 10, @08:39AM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

Meta continues to hit walls with its heavily scrutinized plan to comply with the European Union's strict online competition law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), by offering Facebook and Instagram subscriptions as an alternative for privacy-inclined users who want to opt out of ad targeting.

Today, the European Commission (EC) announced preliminary findings that Meta's so-called "pay or consent" or "pay or OK" model—which gives users a choice to either pay for access to its platforms or give consent to collect user data to target ads—is not compliant with the DMA.

According to the EC, Meta's advertising model violates the DMA in two ways. First, it "does not allow users to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the 'personalized ads-based service." And second, it "does not allow users to exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data," the press release said.

[...] "The DMA is there to give back to the users the power to decide how their data is used and ensure innovative companies can compete on equal footing with tech giants on data access," Breton said.

A Meta spokesperson told Ars that Meta plans to fight the findings—which could trigger fines up to 10 percent of the company's worldwide turnover, as well as fines up to 20 percent for repeat infringement if Meta loses.

Meta continues to claim that its "subscription for no ads" model was "endorsed" by the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), last year.

[...] However, some critics have noted that the supposed endorsement was not an official part of the ruling and that particular case was not regarding DMA compliance.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Wednesday July 10, @11:29AM (1 child)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Wednesday July 10, @11:29AM (#1363631)

    "pay or consent" or "pay or OK"? I believe the name they are looking for is "Pay or Bend Over".

    Although we all know it will really be "Pay AND Bend Over, or Bend Over Even More".

    This is why I don't touch Facefook. Yet people wonder why.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 10, @08:30PM

      by Freeman (732) on Wednesday July 10, @08:30PM (#1363695) Journal

      "Pay and Bend Over" is the Disney model now. Pay for subscription service and get advertisements.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 10, @01:26PM (3 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 10, @01:26PM (#1363644)

    "Say, nice identity you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it. And we can guarantee nothing will happen to it for the low low price of _____."

    It's nothing more than a protection racket, with the phrase "using a computer" tacked on.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @03:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @03:07PM (#1363656)

      with the phrase "using a computer" tacked on.

      You mean it's patentable?

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 10, @05:39PM (1 child)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 10, @05:39PM (#1363668) Journal

      With the small caveat that you don't need to use Facebook.

      I'm still on the side that Facebook's underlying business model is unconscionable and they need to be punished for it, but you can just, you know, not use Facebook or Instagram.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by weirsbaski on Thursday July 11, @03:54AM

        by weirsbaski (4539) on Thursday July 11, @03:54AM (#1363723)

        With the small caveat that you don't need to use Facebook.

        I'm still on the side that Facebook's underlying business model is unconscionable and they need to be punished for it, but you can just, you know, not use Facebook or Instagram.

        Facebook (and probably the rest of the social-media bag) keeps "shadow profiles" on everybody they can. Just because you don't have an account with them doesn't mean they don't have an account on you.

        https://www.devx.com/terms/facebook-shadow-profile/ [devx.com]

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @07:14PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @07:14PM (#1363682)

    If you wanted privacy, what the blue blazes are you doing on Facebook?

    Isn't that like jumping in a pool and paying a fee to stay dry?

    The stories I read about the intelligence of Americans... How do they survive?

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @10:00PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, @10:00PM (#1363699)

      Well, I can't say I know about how intelligence stacks up for Americans, but I might be tempted to draw some conclusions about the reading comprehension skills of certain non Americans after seeing how this whole summary is about Meta and the EU.

      • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday July 11, @12:05PM

        by Nuke (3162) on Thursday July 11, @12:05PM (#1363747)

        Perhaps the OP's point was that Meta are not being prosecuted in the USA and therefore Americans are content with this shit from FB. However that would als apply to every other nation outside the EU.

(1)