If you, like me, live in the EU, Facebook is now entirely clamping down and forcing free users to make their personal data available for monetization.
Attempting to access any Facebook domain and perhaps also other meta products will redirect you to the following prompt with a choice between either accepting the monetization of your user data, or coughing up a region-dependent monthly subscription fee: base (for me ~10β¬) + an additional fee (~7β¬) for each additional facebook or instagram account you have.
Now, the hidden third option. At an initial glance, it seems like there is no other option but to click one of the buttons - however, certain links still work, and grant access to important pieces of functionality through your web browser.
If anyone has information to add regarding Facebook or Instagram, please do share it. I've only (begrudgingly) used the former up until now, but I know many others use Instagram and don't feel like giving a single cent (nor their personal info) to Meta.
-
https://www.facebook.com/dyi - perhaps most important of all, now is a good time to make a request to download your Facebook data. Don't forget to switch to data for "all time" and "high quality" if you intend to permanently delete your account.
-
https://www.facebook.com/your_information - here you can find and manage your information, but crucially also access Facebook messenger.
-
The messenger app: Still hasn't prompted me with anything, though I expect that will change in the not too far future.
Currently my plan is to use messenger to inform any important friends that I intend to leave FB, and where they'll be able to reach me in the future.
this has to be illegal.
like, no, seriously. i'm not a lawyer but i was working on a (since failed) startup in 2018 and distinctly remember how much headache the gdpr caused. literally one of the main things was that you cannot coerce users into consenting to data processing, or make features conditional to them. the gdpr makes a distinction between processing you do to perform a contract (that's why no one asks for your consent for processing your email address to log you in, that's implied) and processing you do for other reasons, which require user consent (that's why everyone asks if they can spam you on the same email -- it doesn't matter that your email address is already on their server, processing it for marketing reasons requires consent of the data subject). opting into these kinds of processing needs to be granular, if it's not they lose the validity of your consent.
i seriously hope facebook gets slapped so hard over this that no one ever thinks about doing this again. "paying with your data" should never be a thing in any society that calls itself civilized.
Yeah I really hope the EU smack'em down. Asking users to pay a fee only because their countries law limit an illegal practice is astonishing
I don't think you understand how this works. I'm not the biggest fan of Facebook but even I know they're not a charity they're not a governmental entity. They're out there to make a profit and if they can't make a profit on their ad revenue then they have to make a profit in another way via a subscription service. So they're literally giving you the option to either continue using them with ads or continue using them as a subscription service. Your other option is to completely delete your Facebook. I don't see the problem here. You aren't entitled to a Facebook page, no matter how useful it is to your personal life.
Edit: a word
then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it's on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that's not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.
it's not about entitlement, it's about playing fair. removing the option to "pay with your data", and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that's on them, it's their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.
and if we're being realistic, they're not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that's what makes this about coercion -- if they didn't have the option to coerce people (and i'm fairly sure they don't have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn't be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you'd probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it's facebook so they'd probably still try to track you).
Every argument you make here is completely silly.
This is a for-profit company and it has always been a for-profit company. They have no obligation to host you on their site and they can stipulate any conditions they like. If they want to make it a choice between paying a subscription fee or you consciously acquiescing to their collecting your data and advertising to you using that data, then that is 100% their right. Equally you have the right to opt out by closing your Facebook page and deleting all of your data on their site. I will reiterate, you are not entitled to a Facebook page!! This is not right, it's a privilege granted to you by this greedy-ass corporation in exchange for monetary compensation, either through targeted ad revenue or a subscription fee. Deal with it.
then don't host the site if they don't want to. or charge people for shit if they want to. i'm not asking for them to not do that, i'm asking for one thing and one thing only: don't make service, free or not, conditional to consenting for data processing not related to providing that service. that shit, to my best knowledge, is illegal in the eu, and it's for a damn good reason.
facebook is not entitled to a profit either just because they're for-profit. they need to earn it. and no, they don't have a right to take a "whatever means necessary" approach on it -- just like a company cannot legally rob people, or cannot legally entice minors into gambling addictions to make that money, in the eu it also cannot coerce people into giving up their personal data just so it can then profit off of that either. consent for that needs to be given willingly, without pressure, and without deception. why is this principle so hard to understand?
you paint some ridiculous strawman arguments here in your efforts to lick the zuck's boots, but i never once asked for facebook to continue giving their service for free if they don't want to. the only thing i said is "paying with your data" is not a valid idea under the gdpr (and honestly, it shouldn't be a thing in any civilized country.) if facebook relies on it, tough shit, their options are to figure out an alternate revenue stream or go out of business. that's how it works for every other business as well.
Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you. The other option is to completely close your Facebook account and delete all of your data on their servers. An argument can be made that they should make it easier to remove all of your data and several people that I know have made that argument. But other than that I don't see anything they are doing as being illegal, in the EU or otherwise. Sure the way they presented is a pretty scummy but what do you want? It's Facebook and it's run by greedy corporate dick heads. If you don't like it delete your Facebook profile.
I also find it hilarious that you don't think they have lawyers who specialize in European Union law that don't know exactly what the fuck they're doing. This is a multi-billion dollar company, they can afford the best goddamn lawyers.
right there. you're a parody of yourself lmao.
a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it's worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that's just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.
you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you "don't see it", playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?
Read carefully:
You π do π not π require π a π Facebook π page π to π live.
It is the very definition of superfluous luxury service. Just delete your page and be done with it.
Read carefully:
You π cannot π make π personal π data π the π price π of π a π service.
It's literally that simple. This is not about whether the product is essential or not, it never was. It's whether this business practice is legitimate or not. The GDPR clearly believes it's not and it's for a reason.
If you do not need a facebook page to live, why provide it for free at all? Just make people either pay or delete their page. Do not bribe them with free shit to manipulate them into giving up their data. That's all there is to it.
Informed consent. It's right there in the text of the law.
https://gdpr.eu/article-5-how-to-process-personal-data/
And you have a right to object to that.
https://gdpr.eu/article-21-right-to-object/
https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-for-consent/
Threatening to disable a user's means of communication as retaliation for an objection is antithetical to Article 21 of the GDPR, and goes directly against Recital 42. Removing your facebook page is a detriment. If there is a detriment to not consenting, consent is considered invalid, therefore facebook has no legal basis to process the data of anyone who clicked "use for free" on the prompt in the original post.
If your only means of communication is Facebook, then that is an absolute failure of your government and society and you have much bigger fish to fry than Facebook's shitty ad policy.
you're just hell-bent on missing the point, aren't you?
just stop. your idea that the loss of a facebook account is not a detriment will never stand up in court, nor should it.
LoL, it's never going to make it to court. π€£
You people are hilarious.
at this point i genuinely believe that you're just trolling. some companies like sony and apple absolutely do have this level of bootlickers who constantly move goalposts and try to convince people how they are ackshually right to do their extremely anti-consumer moves. but facebook? give me a break lmao. but even for a troll it's such a stupid hill to die on
i believe we adequately explored why your idea that corporations have the right to coerce people into giving up their data is idiotic. so idk, keep trolling and insert your next goalpost below this line:
I'm not trolling but you can think what the hell you want, I don't really give a shit.
I don't see it as coercion because Facebook is not a necessary service. And I think everyone here who is tearing their hair out and screaming about how "illegal" this new policy is are being overly dramatic.
It's just as simple as that. Oh, and my personal hope is that the new policy will encourage people to delete their Facebook. I would love to see the site go up in flames like Twitter is currently doing. So you thinking I'm some kind of sycophantic fanboy of Zuckerberg and his "metaverse" is quite hilarious to me. π€£
Your thinking is so pinned-down by business-centric presumptions it's ridiculous.
The Law doesn't give a shit about any one company's chosen business model, otherwise Murder would be legal as long as it was done by employees of an incorporated "Murdering Services" company.
Further, Facebook is an American company which avoids tax like crazy, so in Europe even politicians don't give a shit about their business model, which means these Laws were not even adjusted to account for Facebook's business model when they were created.
Facebook's business model and even survival as a company are wholly irrelevant: the Law is the Law, and Facebook either obbey it or they stop operating in the Jurisdictions whose laws they don't want to obbey - ultimatelly, all legal recourses exhausted, "comply" or "leave" are their only two options.
And I don't think you understand the problem. Nothing is preventing Facebook from displaying ads. Facebook's issue is collecting user data and using it to directly target ads. They can make it so that a user can opt out of personalized ads and still show ads to that person. Companies would still pay to display their ads, perhaps not at the same rate but that doesn't mean Facebook would be losing money by serving those users.
Let's not act like Facebook is going to go bankrupt if some of their users opt out of data collection and targeted ads.
Literally nearly every website on the internet does this. Even the ones you pay a fee to subscribe to.
You have the choice to close your account with Facebook if you don't like their policy. Again, this is a completely for profit company, they have no obligation to host you on their site.
Are you even a little familiar with GDPR?
Nobody is acting like they have a right to Facebook in this thread. Likewise, nobody is saying that Facebook shouldn't be trying to make money. The issue at hand isn't the choice between a fee and ads. The issue is that you have to pay to opt out of targeted advertising and that they're using dark patterns to encourage people to consent to targeted advertising.
So the suggestion above that this may be illegal is accurate. You're so focused on a person's ability to not do business that you're ignoring that there are laws regulating this type of behavior.
I trust that Facebook's lawyers are payed enough to make sure that this is technically legal. These laws always have loopholes.
It's a reaction to Facebook methods being deemed illegal in Europe. Although this does not mean than the new model is illegal, it's an interesting sample of Facebook not always being right even though they have good layers. Both Facebook, Google and many other big tech, operate on the edge of what is legal and often on the other side of it, because it can be profitable enough to just pay the fine if it turns out to be illegal.
This last move, I believe, is more of a statement than it is an actual change.
Oh, yea. I can believe that these lawyers checked it out and determined that it may be illegal, but more like a "pay a fine that's the equivalent of a bubblegum wrap when scaled down to regular people money" illegal and not "shut down the company and place the CEO behind bars" illegal.
Now, if it was Xwitter, I could totally see Must ignoring all his lawyers and just YOLOing it.
i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn't really last)
I would love for FB to be smacked down hard by the EU, but isnβt this just the inclusion of a new option that didnβt exist before, I.e. the subscription? If you push the right button, isnβt that the status quo that youβve been using all along without any other option? I donβt understand how giving more options is more coercive than before.
no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without "paying for it with your data" at all.
and if that's not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that's alright. there's nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that's illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don't consent for unrelated data processing. they're not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don't want to share their data.
that's the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.
What does "like" mean here? What's it for?
It's how people have been talking for, like, 20 years now at least
Rather, fucked american english. Like, fucked american english. Like, fucked. Like, like! Like!
flair, mostly. lol
Assuming you're not a native English speaker. It's a filler word. It doesn't really mean anything, it's used more to communicate tone.
Being native doesn't make one being able to speak properly.