this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
223 points (98.3% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Awful to see our personal privacy and social lives being ransomed like this. €10 seems like a price gouge for a social media site, and I'm even seeing a price tag of 150SEK (~€15) In Sweden.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] morras@jlai.lu 58 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Price is a thing, but having the option to chose is definitely good.

Now comes the real question: do you really trust the Zuck to implement a "do not share/sell anything" policy ? 'Cause yeah, if I'm paying, I'm expecting that none of my data is being sold/processed/transmitted to another company. Paying to just remove ads is .. pointless.

[–] Dmian@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The thing is, there’s no “we’ll show you generic ads with no tracking” option. It’s accept being tracked or pay (two shitty options).

It seems that companies can’t do ads nowadays unless it’s targeted ads, and that makes you think it’s not ads what gives money, but selling your data. To whom? For what ends? You’ll never know. And that’s the problem.

So, the options given are unacceptable. The only reasonable option is to download your data and close the account.

[–] Jaccident@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It’s worth noting that the advertising industry never has had a concept of an untargetted advert. They have always had some marker to target their distribution; be that geographical placement of a billboard, the typical social status of a newspaper’s readership, or the target audience for a tv programme they run ads in. Truly untargetted ads would be effectively useless to an advertiser; nobody in Kolkatta is buying the new American Swiss Cheese from Danone; and nobody in Middle England is buying Japanese tentacle sex toys.

Distribution channel (i.e. a site’s core purpose) is the last untargetted target option; sell sex stuff on porn sites, games stuff on games sites etc. However, when your platform is for everyone, does everything, hosts any kind of content, you have nothing to use.

It is my opinion that the best solution for the average user is to ban cross-site tracking and scraping, but allow content and interaction based advertising within the site. If someone posts on a bunch of maternity groups, advertise them pumps etc. but someone searching that on Google should have the reasonable expectation that clicking on maternitytips.co.nz won’t mean their Facebook feed is full of pumps. I think for most people, that level of profiling is acceptable and, crucially, understandable. They can understand how the data footprint they create impacts what they see. Which is far less intrusive.

That said, Facebook can burn, I left it nearly ten years ago and wouldn’t dream of returning.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Traditional advertising has worked perfectly fine for centuries. In the last 10 years technology has advanced to the point where dragnet surveillance is cheap, and suddenly all the advertisers are chomping at the bit to overpay for "targeted" advertising. Most ads are still only sold based on geographic region, and "demographic data" is proving to be completely useless. Your average social media user will see ads that are completely unrelated to their actual interests.

At best, maybe a "targeted" ad is worth twice as much as a normal ad, but is that worth the hundreds of billions of dollars spent developing that technology, and the loss of privacy for billions of people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

However, when your platform is for everyone, does everything, hosts any kind of content, you have nothing to use.

Why can't you use the content of the page to decide what ads to show? If there's a Reddit thread discussing games, show gaming ads in that thread and kitchen ads in the threads about cooking. If your front page on Twitter happens to have multiple people writing about traveling, show travel ads. You don't need to know anything about the users to advertise based on content.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They won't stop tracking you. They'll just not show you ads. They can still track amdnusr the data though to customise your feed according to your data.

I've uninstalled the apps.

Also the price is pr account. It's not a reasonable price but they don't want you to pick that option anyway

[–] Dmian@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Absolutely. I’ll go the same route. I’ll put a message informing of my departure for my contacts for a while, and urging people to switch to Mastodon, and then close my personal account on Instagram (I closed my Facebook account a long time ago). I encouraged my son to download Mastodon too, and tell his friends to do the same. I hope they end up switching with time.

I have an account for some projects (business account) that I don’t care if it’s being tracked, as I put no personal information there. I’ll keep that as long as it’s useful. But I hope I can close it eventually, if people switch to Mastodon. We’ll see.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I mean I would argue that the important choice - not use FB/Instagram at all - isn't an option for most people. People's lives depend on this software, a lot of people would have a really hard time connecting with friends or participating in community organizations without access to Meta's locked-in user base.

This is why the option to pay for your own privacy rights is a false choice, and why these gatekeepers need stricter regulation from the EU. These companies make billions in profits from their monopoly positions and privacy rights abuses.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gajustempus@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago

the fact I don't trust this lizardman any farther than I could toss him is the reason I took it as an opportunity to say goodbye to anything Meta-related.

I haven't trust him and his "company" before, I won't start with it now and throw money at him

[–] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

They'll sell your data up until you pay, right? So if I've had an account for 15 years, and then start paying, my 15 years of data is still at their disposal.

[–] ISOmorph@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

100% this. I'd argue though, that the price point is fair. In 2018, Facebook earned an average of roughly $110 in ad revenue per American user according to this article.

[–] Yamm@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The price might be fair for american users. The average european user makes Facebook about $60 per year. Sorce: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cjk@feddit.de 49 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is a classic. Make the price high enough that nobody wants to pay it, but low enough that law enforcement doesn't complain. Everybody will click on the „I'm Ok with tracking“ button.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 31 points 11 months ago (6 children)

And for those who pay, they will still probably sell their data to advertisers and hike the prices in 2-3 years.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Social media ≠ social lives.

People need to remember this and not give their social lives to private companies.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 12 points 11 months ago

Most of society doesn't realize this yet, sadly.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] sexy_peach@feddit.de 38 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Suddenly Lemmy hosting costs seem really low...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Don_alForno@feddit.de 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In the case of Facebook, the average value of an active user’s data to Facebook is about $2 per months.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge more than that.

Source

[–] mreiner@beehaw.org 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Respectfully, an article from four years ago that I cannot read in full without creating an account, which seems to just reference a calculator from FT that is over a decade old at this point (whose sources I also cannot seem to find) doesn’t impress me. Do you have anything more recent, preferably that sites sources, that you can share? I’m genuinely interested in what data is actually worth

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago

All valid points. Tbh I'm not on FB or any of meta's services, and I don't care about FB enough to put in more research time. I consider this a data point to start from.

Facebook should be required to show how a single set of a random user's data actually means even close to 13€ a month of revenue for them. This is not a good they willingly put out on the market, this is an alternative the law forces them to give to people, and it should actually have to be equivalent.

[–] iarigby@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The wording in the message was also “we won’t use your data for ads” - which I understood as that they will still track it…

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

They sure will! They basically just removed untargeted ads and replaced it with addfree subscription. Major loss for users

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Instead of paying 10€/month for a desktop subscribtion you can also just use adblocker which does the exact same thing.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

An ad blocker doesn't prevent FB and Instagram internal tracking and usage of personal data, and they don't work on the phone app.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Neither does the subscribtion

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 5 points 11 months ago

Fair enough.

[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Is it a good news for alternative social media ?

I mean now that people have to pay to use facebook, wouldn't they move to the fedi ?

Also do we want the racist uncle and the boomer memes on the fedi ?

[–] Molotov@feddit.de 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You can still choose to use the "free" version where you have to accept all the cookies, trackers and I don't know what else.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True, that part never changed. I'm not using any Facebook social networks, so it doesn't affect me. But adding more options doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, even though the price seems pretty steep.

[–] Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Shit thing for me, I use it to reach guests and make announcements for the restaurant. Sucks but that's where most people still get local information.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This isn't really relevant for end users. It's a monthly fee for companies and public organizations, so they can check the box on a separate set of AGB's that technically satisfy their compliance requirements.

[–] LaoisheFu@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I can't access Instagram unless I agree to the new rules so yes it does affect end users.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What happens to my data if I just leave it like that? Can facebook use it or not?

[–] max@feddit.nl 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Instagram doesn’t let you continue unless you choose one of the options.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Same with Facebook, so if I don't continue and just stop using it now, what about my data?

I assume they can't use it without my explicit consent, but I don't know.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IchLiebeKetchup@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

unrelated, but why can't I see a single comment?

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 11 months ago

Did you pay for them? It's 12c per comment, or you can buy the whole thread for 70c

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I noticed that a lot of comments don't show up if you don't set your language right in your lemmy settings. I just set it to N/A and also shift clicked on English, and it made a lot of invisible comments show up.

[–] IchLiebeKetchup@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago

that actually did the trick. thank you so much

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Facebook and Instagram users in the European Union will be charged up to €12.99 a month for ad-free versions of the social networks as a way to comply with the bloc’s data privacy rules, parent company Meta said on Monday.

The higher prices reflect commissions charged by the Apple and Google app stores on in-app payments, the company said in a blogpost.

The company’s main way of making money is to tailor ads for individual users based on their online interests and digital activity.

Under the EU’s Digital Markets Act legislation, Meta platforms will have to gain explicit consent before tracking a user for advertising purposes.

The paid option “balances the requirements of European regulators while giving users choice and allowing Meta to continue serving all people”, the company’s statement reads.

Users aged 18 and older in the EU’s 27 member countries, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein will still have the choice of continuing to use Facebook or Instagram with ads.


The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›