Meta Thinks Your Privacy Is for Sale. Would You Pay 120 Euros a Year to Facebook for Respecting Your Human Right to Privacy?
tutanota.comRecently a European Court has judged that Meta’s way of collecting and using people’s data in Europe has been in violation of privacy regulations between 2018 and 2023. Now Meta announced an option of Facebook and Instagram without personalized ads for 120 euros per year. European users would have the option to pay or agree to personalized ads. But is your right to privacy for sale? Let’s find out!
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.42K Posts
- 56.9K Comments
- Modlog
Fine the fuck out of them! 3% annual revenue per day of violation. That’s the penalty. Hit them hard! Fucking fuckface fuckers!
You mean 30%, right?
GDPR caps out at 4% of global turnover. Which is still a monumental amount of money.
Wow, I can’t believe our regulators put in such a dumb limit into this otherwise awesome regulation
A monumental amount, or a tiny tax if the abuse doubles their profit…
The profit they’d need to make off EU users would need to increase by over $4.66 billion to make a 4% fine on of global revenue.
Even if every single person in the EU (including babies and anyone who doesn’t have a meta account) took up the paid tier it wouldn’t offset a 4% fine on global revenue. They’d need it make $10 profit extra per person per month. Their price is €10 (just over 10 USD) a month. Subtract from that 20% tax and another let’s say 5% for card handling fees and their general costs gives them €7.50. The you need to subtract from that what they were making off users before as we’re looking at increase.
20% of their revenue comes from the EU, almost all of it from ads. I’d argue that complying with the law would cost them more than a quarter of the EU ads revenue, without affecting their costs much -> that’d be 5% of global revenue. Breaking the law still pays.
Also, how do you conclude that 448 million people paying 90 EUR per year, for a total of 40 billion EUR, wouldn’t offset a 4.66 billion USD fine?
If the fine was 4% of global revenue every month, sure. So far it looks like it’d be every 3-5 years though…
Lol oh yeah, good point.
Well… Meta isn’t a charity so they need to have a monetization model. If something is free then you are the product. Is 120 euros not worth your privacy? If the answer is “no” then your choice is to accept the ads or not to use the platform. I don’t see how this is a problem.
I might be wrong, but I think GDPR means in this scenario if you won’t pay, you aren’t consenting to the ads. Meta by GDPR standards should be blocking you, not forcing ads on you.
They can’t create a implicit permission for it.
It does not have to be implicit. Just redirect to a page where you either have to accept or get logged out.
That’s…basically what I said.
So, that blog post is by Tutanota who, as we’re all aware, also offer a paid-for product. But there’s a lot of difference between a paid-for product that will only respect your privacy if you pay for it (and even that is questionable) and a paid-for product that just does respect your privacy, even on their free tier.
And, as others have said, Meta have made little to no mention of several things about this paid-for model:
point 3 is actually irrelevent unless this is done for propaganda reasons (highly likely though). theres no reason they wouldnt want to make a large amount of money and offering a choice that wasnt there before isnt a scenario where we’re somehow worse off - at the worse we’re the same
Is it really a choice though if you want to be private but you can’t afford 13 euros a month?
It’s not the fact they’re charging that’s the issue, it’s the fact they’re charging such a massive amount of money.
Meta is Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp right? Some people would argue it could harm your social life to not be on those, depending on your social circle of course. Now if it becomes lose friends or pay or lose privacy, this might not be an actual choice but a one made for you.
The other problem is when legislation makes privacy a right, you can’t then have a company sell it to you. That’s like a company charging you to vote because all voting booths happen to be standing in their buildings.
Your response tickles my brain. Thank you.
Well, the first question would be if the revenues that meta makes are comparable. Because if they are not an argument can be made it is not a real alternative.
Second, the data COLLECTION, storage and processing is the issue. And all info on the subscription seems to suggest that does not change. Just the ad serving.
Lastly what about all users that don’t have a Facebook account but are tracked regardless. Meta and the other privacy-invasion companies should not be allowed too track me wholesale without my explicit consent, and luckily the law is on my side.
removed by mod