Platforms should not confront users with 'binary choice' over personal data use

The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

In October last year, the social media giant said it would be possible to pay Meta to stop Instagram or Facebook feeds of personalized ads and prevent it from using personal data for marketing for users in the EU, EEA, or Switzerland. Meta then announced a subscription model of €9.99/month on the web or €12.99/month on iOS and Android for users who did not want their personal data used for targeted advertising.

At the time, Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb, said: “EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a ‘privacy fee’ of up to €250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection.”

  • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
    6·
    7 months ago

    If I understand you correctly, you’re making the same argument as !snooggums@midwest.social above, so I’ll copy answer to them here:

    That is a completely different issue. On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.

    On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 months ago

      Are there any rights you think should supersede contracts? If so, how do you draw the line between rights that do and don’t?

      • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        Are there any rights you think should supersede contracts? If so, how do you draw the line between rights that do and don’t?

        (I’ll answer your question in a comment side-chain, just because you asked.)

        Germans have the right to continued wage payments if they need to take care of family members (§616 BGB). However, that right can be voided in the employment contract.

        (§618 BGB) essentially states that the work environment must be reasonably safe. This cannot be voided by contract, as is codified in (§619 BGB).

        These are just instances. I do not know any general rules for the precedence of contracts over the law or vice versa.

          • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            I’m not sure which meaning of ‘should be able to be voided’ you’re using. Do you mean ‘Why do think it’s legal to void it’ or ‘Why do you think it’s legitimate to be able to void it’?

            In the first case: My employment contract does exactly this. It’s become kind of a default clause in contracts. Researching this you’ll find a lot of websites (in German) that say that the clause is ‘abdingbar’ (which I translated as ‘voidable’).

            In the second case: I didn’t say I thought it legitimate, and I don’t have a strong opinion on this.

      • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        Are there any rights you think should supersede contracts?

        That is beside the point I’m making. Facebook acknowledges the right to privacy by giving you the choice to pay for the service rather than giving up your data. In my view, this should be completely acceptable by the GDPR. No-one is forcing you to sign up to facebook, so you do have a completely free choice to (1) either not give up your data and not use facebook; or (2) not give up your data and pay for the service; or (3) give up your data and pay for the service that way.