To be clear: I prefer to pay for things instead of having to see ads but 13€ / month!? For a meta product that has inherently user-hostile design patterns even without ads?
Who does this appeal to?
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
I don't think the European GDPR allows this (forcing ppl to pay for privacy).
It does. As long as there is an alternative in the form of a subscription, they can offer a "free" tier like that
It's not as clear cut as either of us thinks... To my surprise the Dutch seem to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak https://consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/
Nobody is forcing anyone, you are free to not use the service at any time.
What they're doing is turning it into an explicitly paid sevice, and letting you choose whether you'd rather pay in money, or in personal data.
In an ideal world, everyone would have the option to decide getting their personal data gathered, or not, in exchange for some money/crypto, with competing data gatherers offering different packages and rewards, and they could use it to subscribe to whatever services they wished.
As far as my interpretation of the law goes... You can either block your website to all non paying visitors OR you also allow non paying visitors but you are not allowed to blackmail the free visitors to give up their privacy. Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. And that's something the EU definitely doesn't want to happen (net neutrality). I think the Dutch verdicts will be overruled by Europe one of these days... Or years :)
IANAL, but... I don't think the law says that? My understanding is that the points are not related to each other:
That would mean all these combinations would be allowed:
If a site decides to only implement numbers 2 and 3... there wouldn't be any conflict.
Net neutrality doesn't apply to services, only to carriers, who are considered more like utilities, but still aren't required to offer a "free" tier. Services don't need to offer an option accessible to everyone at all, they can specify whatever requirements they want (with only a few exceptions related to discrimination).
Large social media platforms... is where current legislative efforts are in. Above a certain number of users, they're getting defined more as utilities, and subject to more requirements, but still no "free" tier.
The internet divide exists already: some households can afford 1Gbps unmetered symmetric fiber with Netflix, HBO and Disney+ and a few mobile lines with unlimited calls and 50GB/month data for 100€/month... while others can barely affford a prepaid 100MB/month mobile connection for 1€/month... but it's fine as long as it's a divide based on service pricing, not carrier traffic discrimination.
Sorry for the downvote, especially seen that case law hasn't been settled yet nor if your, or my, reasoning is the correct one. I just hate your arguments though it looks like you work as a part-time Dutch judge :))
Don't be sorry, just don't use downvotes to express your opinion... use your words.
If you don't like my arguments, go ahead and propose others.
For starters, I see you referring to "case law", which sounds like a US thing. In the EU, case decisions generally don't shape the law, except Supreme Court decisions, and even then lawmakers can inform or reform those decisions. It's usually more accurate to define a logical reasoning from the bare law, rather than expect decisions in one case to influence others.
What do you base your reasoning on?
I'm not an English native speaker nor a Lawyer. I base it on how I understood the law through articles in the years since it was introduced. We can go back and forth, but there's nothing I can add that isn't in the article I also linked in the replies. Thanks :)
In case Lemmy didn't show my other reply https://mander.xyz/comment/4939010
It's not as clear cut as either of us thinks... To my surprise the Dutch seem to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak https://consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/