Meta

You are not in Kansas anymore.

By what measure is the fine 'unlawful'?

Maybe if you were only doing business in the US then the EU would have no jurisdiction, but you aren't.

You play by the rules where you trade or you get out.

Uncle Donald will not be able to help you out with this however much you wish he could.

I bet quite a few people would like to give meta all they deserve. Let me just add a few nails to my cluebat...

According to Meta, national courts and data protection authorities, including in France, Denmark, and Germany, have given "consistent support" for "business models that provide a paid subscription alternative to consent for personal data use for personalized ads."

But not the European Commission, which handed down a €200 million ($228 million) fine for the Meta's "consent or pay" ad model in April.

It doesnt matter what individual members want they are not sovereign countries anymore. You need to brown envelope the EU bureaucrats. Of course this is about governments and not users so the proles just have to live with whatever the rulers dictate.

Stop mapping your delusions onto random stories.

"Stop mapping your delusions onto random stories."

And for our entertainment would you care to explain what is the delusion? Note what was said- national courts and data protection authorities, including in France, Denmark, and Germany, have given "consistent support" ... But not the European Commission .

I have trimmed it to make it easier for you to understand. So if those member countries are happy with Meta but the EU commission isnt and therefore only the EU commissions opinion matters...

Dont hurt yourself of course I wouldnt want you to have a migraine but would you try to articulate a relevant thought in reply to my comment?

Any chance of you going behind a paywall?

@Headley_Grange

"Any chance of you going behind a paywall?"

No need to donate to me thanks but I appreciate you value my comments.

How else would morons fill their time?

How else would brash 'celebrities' and 'influencers' make their mark?

How else would politicians, and two-bit self-declared statesmen, offer knee-jerk reactions to events and, of course, keep themselves in the public view?

How else can the marketing industry grab attention for minimal effort?

How else might plebeians experience the joys of being followers?

How else may 'the followed' feel important?

How else could people enjoy the thrill of joining in 'viral' cascades of nonsense?

How else could 'the woke' ply their trade?

How else may Zuckerberg, and similar people, revel in their deep contributions to culture?

Not seeing any downsides here.

Well....

- Less Nazi's...

- less people dead because of easily preventable diseases

- Less people dead because of a stupid dare

- Less right-wing politicians being able to spread their lies to a large population

I don't see any downsides either...

Less Nazi's

I trust we can retain their grammarian ilk.

If you're being grammarian, fewer not less.

Fewer people using incorrect grammar‽

... Meta is right.

Here's Heise covered by the German DPR and GDPR -> [1]Heise Online

Here's The Sun covered by ICO and UK-GDPR -> [2]The Sun

Can you spot the difference between these pop-ups and Meta's pop-up?

Either everyone should be able to offer "Pay or OK" or nobody should. Unfortunately "Pay or OK" effectively makes the GDPR useless as hardly anyone will choose to pay, but then national DPRs shouldn't have allowed "Pay or OK" for traditional media in the first place.

[1] https://www.heise.de/en

[2] https://www.thesun.co.uk/

It seems that Meta was fined under DMA provisions which wouldn't apply to Heise or even The Sun. But I agree that this is an area in which market dominance shouldn't be relevant - I'm not sure how you could even give meaningful consent to a "pay or be tracked" contract when neither side may know the potential consequences of taking the "free" option.

I can't see anthing (Noscript?) but I assume you're alluding to the "subscribe or see ads" pop-ups that many papers (in the UK) show. I'm not sure of the legality in the UK now we're not in the EU.

Howerve, I agree with you - it should be a level playing field. If the business model is only viable on the basis of stealing my info and re-selling it then I don't care if they go bust. No other "we have to steal stuff" business model would be allowed. What Meta is saying, effectively, is that virtually no one would use it if they had to pay, but they aren't exactly on the bones of their arse so I don't think anyone will buy that as an argument for getting away with what they want. I assume (happy to be corrected) that the reason the EU is going after Meta and not the Sun is that Meta is on their big game list (whatever it's called) based on how many EU users they have. If they win against the likes of Meta, Google and such then the smaller offenders like The Sun will only need a warning letter, I guess.

The EU aren't bothered with going after The Sun since Brexit. They are bothered about UK-GDPR but only in the sense if it is adequate to hold EU residents' data. The EU wouldn't go after Heise either as "Pay or OK" is legal in Germany and other EU countries but not all of them.

The only reason the EU can fine Meta is because they're doing something which is illegal in some EU countries - in those countries where "Pay or OK" is illegal, Meta should be offering "Reject or OK". But they can't just fine Meta for using "Pay or OK" because that's legal in many EU countries and it's an option used by other media companies in those countries.

I could be going off on the wrong tangent, but going from memory there is a difference.

AIUI it is allowed to basically say "you pay one way OR another" - with one way being to actually hand over money, the other being to hand over information instead. Many services offer a choice between two or more of "fully add supported", "pay a little, still get ads, but not personalised", "pay more and have an ad and slurp free experience".

But what Meta were doing (as I understood the reports at the time) was basically offer "you can hand over money - but we'll still slurp all your data and do what the heck we want, where we want, in total disregard to GDPR", What they offered in exchange was to show less targeted ads - what they didn't offer was an opt-out from illegal data harvesting.

The reality is that if they'd offered a paid for "non-slurping" option right from the start (and otherwise not thrown away any goodwill & reputation they had) then they could have built a legal and viable business. The problem now is that their business cannot succeed if they comply with EU/UK law - they've proved too many times that they really don't care and will screw you even if they've said they won't (and even if they've sold you a non-screwover option), so who is going to trust them now ?

I still don't undrstand the "business can't survive" bit. The advertising budgets aren't going to change much so when all the huge players are playing the same way then the money will spread about the same way, won't it. No one's going to pay to use Meta, but neither is anyone going to pay to use Google search or Xitter, so they'll all be in the same boat. What am I missing?

Q: A world without social media. What might that be like?

A: A better world in almost every way. "Social" media is a parasite that's destroying society.

The problem is that Melon, the Zuckerborg et al view Bladerunner and their ilk as a blueprint for the future rather than dystopian fiction.

Deserves? Meta is in exactly the same position as the busker in the underground, or the juggler at the cross-roads while the lights are red. They are freely distributing a product, and hoping some might pay for it. And some may, one way or another. But society does _not_ owe Meta a living. They deserve nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Although what I think meta the Zuckburghers deserve, and would constitute fair compensation may differ from what they think they deserve.

They probably had fewer face eating leopards in mind for a start…

Quite crafty of the astute pusher to induce dependency and addiction in would-be SM² junkies with seemingly free merchandise until the unwitting fish is well hooked, lined, and sinkered! Or is it ...

I mean, in this game, you (fish junky) are the actual product, and unpaid at it ... monetized through mass commercial surveillance and behavioral analysis that trains recommender A I s to deliver targeted ads (sold by the pusher to advertisers) back to you and to absolutely everyone you know, or can think of, in the whole wide world, everything everywhere all at once (with or without [1]dildo kung-fu ).

And well, it's a known business model to sell ads to pay for a free service ... but European consumer groups say: "wait a healthy lifestyle gastronomic minute here my chum", "it's not the same thing when you use my personal efforts and data to optimize and target your ads". "If you do that, then you have to pay ME for it. After all, you're worth a stupefying [2]$1.8 Trillion out of this heretofore insidious spliff racket!". Which is where things get interesting ...

What's a pusher with its pants down to do when faced with such a conundrum of verity? Well, of course, redefine reality in its own image that it is the very nature of freedom to have one's self bloodsuckered into a metaphorical near-death zombie junky state for the privilege of participating in the exclusive underworld of SM² ... or pay for [3]protection !

²⁻ SM = Social Media; SM² could also be Social Media Sado Masochist/Masochism, if desired ...

[1] https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/everything-everywhere-all-at-once-making-of-daniels-multiverse-odyssey/

[2] https://www.google.com/search?channel=entpr&q=how+much+is+meta+worth

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket