Meta's ad-free scheme dares you to buy your privacy back, one euro at a time
- Reference: 1698744607
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/10/31/meta_ad_free_europe/
- Source link:
Campaigners have long wanted to put a price on a user's data, and [1]Meta appears to have done just that. If you want to use its services, but do not want ads or have your data sold to marketeers, that will be €9.99/month on the web or €12.99/month on iOS and Android.
The higher price for iOS and Android is blamed on the cut Apple and Google demand for purchases.
[2]
Regardless of where a user makes the purchase, the subscription will apply to all linked Facebook and Instagram accounts in a user's Accounts Center. However, from March 1, 2024, Zuck's team will want an additional fee of €6/month on the web and €8/month on iOS and Android for each additional account listed in a user's Accounts Center.
[3]
[4]
As for why the company is doing this, it all comes down to the rulings of European regulators, who have been cranking up the pressure on how social media outlets use personal data. Following rulings to the effect that Meta needs to seek consent from users, the company has opted for a subscription model.
[5]Meta had previously said that it would seek explicit consent from EU users before serving targeted ads, and here we are.
[6]
The company said: "In its ruling, the CJEU [Court of Justice of the European Union] expressly recognized that a subscription model, like the one we are announcing, is a valid form of consent for an ads funded service."
If you don't subscribe, you effectively consent to ads and your data being used in personalized advertising campaigns.
You would be forgiven for thinking this is all a bit topsy-turvy. Meta is expecting a substantial amount of cash from users for not slurping their data for marketing purposes, which seems to be at odds with the spirit of rulings from regulators, if not some of the actual words.
[7]Meta decides to Just Say No to Oversight Board requests and allow paid posts for ketamine
[8]33 AGs sue Meta for 'exploitative and harmful acts' against American children
[9]More X subscription tiers could spell doom for free access as biz bleeds cash
[10]Meta watchdog sticks a probe into Facebook rules after fake Biden vid allowed to stay
Longtime privacy campaigner Max Schrems [11]noted earlier this month:
"The CJEU said that the alternative to ads must be 'necessary' and the fee must be 'appropriate.' I don't think €160 a year is what they had in mind. These six words are also an 'obiter dictum,' a non-binding element that went beyond the core case before the CJEU. For Meta this is not the most stable case law and we will clearly fight against such an approach."
[12]
Meta also has the thorny issue of the under-18s to consider. While the subscription model with no ads is available to users aged 18 and up, it also must consider younger users. The company said: "We're continuing to explore how to provide teens with a useful and responsible ad experience given this evolving regulatory landscape."
The exploration had best be rapid. The company is very much in the cross hairs of lawmakers, and there is no guarantee that its subscription model will pass muster with the courts. Meta has already been identified as a gatekeeper under the European Commission's Digital Markets Act (DMA), and, combined with the Digital Services Act (DSA), Meta is likely to come under scrutiny over how it handles children's data for marketing purposes. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZUDeVejkqqBCo6XHvIAXsQAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZUDeVejkqqBCo6XHvIAXsQAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZUDeVejkqqBCo6XHvIAXsQAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/02/meta_eu_gdpr_advertising/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZUDeVejkqqBCo6XHvIAXsQAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/26/meta_oversight_board_ketamine/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/24/33_states_lawsuit_meta/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/20/x_subs/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/11/meta_oversight_board_biden_video/
[11] https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-move-pay-your-rights-approach
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZUDeVejkqqBCo6XHvIAXsQAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
If you don't subscribe, you effectively consent to ads
IANAL, but I think context will be all here. It will need to be abundantly clear to users what they are opting for and what will happen to their personal data.
Any language that obfuscates the nature of data collection in the hope that people will say "well, I'm not paying that" and click on "consent" instead is unlikely to pass muster.
It does sound like they've recruited Baldrick to head up their Cunning Plan department. At least Clegg will now have an intellectual equal.
Is it just me, or does that sound remarkably like a protection racket?
Nice data you've got here, shame if somebody was to slurp it?
Shocked?
People want facebook. People dont want to spend any money to use facebook. People dont want ads which pays for facebook.
Some entitled people demanding this.
Re: Shocked?
Some of it is entitlement, but most of it is just that most people don't realize how much data about them Meta collects, or how valuable it is, or how harmful targeted advertising can be.
There is also the problem that there are services that should have nothing to do with Meta, but in practice rely on Meta as an infrastructure, effectively forcing you to have a Meta account in order to interact with them. For example, some small businesses only publish fresh information on Facebook and leave their website to neglect; also, way too many people and businesses rely on WhatsApp; local schools use Meta services for students, teachers and parents; and so on, and so forth.
This is not technically Meta's fault, but it's also not the end users' fault, and it's excessively difficult to convince a school that they should not use WhatsApp groups. Because, see above, they don't know how harmful unchecked data collection is.
Protection rackets
You would be forgiven for thinking this is all a bit topsy-turvy. Meta is expecting a substantial amount of cash from users for not slurping their data for marketing purposes, which seems to be at odds with the spirit of rulings from regulators, if not some of the actual words.
Nah, it's a well-established and historical business model. Pay me $160 and your windows won't get broken. Pay me $160 and I won't install cameras and microphones in your bedroom. Pay me $160, and your personal & private data won't get collected and sold.
Seems rather like extortion to me. I have no business or contractual relationship with FaceMelta, and I don't knowingly use any of their services. I don't have any contract with them to supply services, especially any services I have no wish to provide, like my personal information or browsing habits. So it seems a little odd that the only way I stop them doing something they shouldn't be doing is to pay them. Not that I have any faith or trust that paying the extortion fee would stop them hoovering up the data anyway, especially given all the stalking and spying junk that FaceMelta still spew across every website and service they can. Presumably the only way this could work is some internal version of 'Do Not Stalk' cookie that automagically deletes the data for anyone who's signed up for this protection racket.
I thought this was an Onion article
Saw something about this a day or two ago... and my first thought was that it was an onion argument and/or a hoax as it's done the rounds many times over the years... I can remember fake posts/stories about (insert social media site here) was going to start charging you to use it going back 10yrs or more.
Doesn't bother me at all... I deleted FB about 12yrs ago, deleted twatter about 5-6yrs ago. I do everything I can to block their ads/trackers/scripts (same with others)... I might not get it all, but I make what they do get as useless as possible.
I'm happy that my entire social media presence is on mastodon, it's peaceful, friendly and inclusive and so far... without the hate because when you get attempts by far right groups to 'infiltrate' with their own 'instance'... they just get defederated by all of the others. It's quite funny to watch.
Re: I thought this was an Onion article
"I'm happy that my entire social media presence is on mastodon"
Does "The Register" not count as social media ?
Forward this to all your friends!
Groan, I can already imagine the dumb forwarded posts, about how "Facebook are going to start charging for your account" and probably also mentioning Bill Gates for some reason.
a useful and responsible ad experience
IS there such a thing? Except for perhaps 'no adverts, unless explicitly sought'?
How will tracking be stopped?
Look at what your script blocker has blocked on non-facebook pages and there will likely be at least one facebook or fb script. I believe this is "we might not actively track you while on our site " and nothing else.
Re: How will tracking be stopped?
I believe this is "we will not show you ads, but we will still track everything, everywhere, and use it to show ads to your friends - although, if you ask, we'll deny we're doing it".
Re: How will tracking be stopped?
"And if you visit a pharmacy website we'll totally tell all your friends that someone around them was shopping for pile cream."
Remember too: it's impossible to not be "on Facebook".
even if you never signed up, Facebook knows who you are, because it knows who your friends who are on Facebook are.
It only takes *one* of them to have your email address in their slurped contacts, and it's game over.
There's also the not-so-little problem that I do not trust Meta to actually do what it says.
They have been fined by the EU, multiple times, and each time they only changed the least bit necessary... not to comply with the law, but just to force the infraction procedure to restart from scratch.
I used WhatsApp until shortly after it was bought by Meta, at which point I asked them to delete my account. My personal phone number still appears as a WhatsApp user today, even though I have sent them a certified mail asking for deletion of my data under GDPR. This is in blatant violation of the law, but at this point there's nothing I can do without hiring a lawyer. And even if I did that, the best I could hope for would just be for people to stop finding me on WhatsApp - but there is no way I could be certain they actually deleted my data and all backups. So, kinda pointless.
They have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted with my privacy even when compelled by the law . Assuming I wanted to use their services, and I don't, why should I believe that paying them would work? Most likely, they'll take the money, slurp my data anyway, and just make sure my account doesn't make it obvious to me.
I'll consider this again if the EU makes it clear that the maximum GDPR penalties - something that actually hurts - are on the table, and that someone will be actively watching for compliance. Until them, I'd recommend not falling for this.
As for why the company is doing this
...the guy in charge screwed up so hard they have to try to claw back every single centime they can get. Just so happens that the EU has some handy laws that can be blamed, but if it works here, expect it to be rolled out elsewhere.
My simple way of avoiding Zuck's ads ...
is to not go near his privacy sucking empire. Also my no-script settings mark him as untrusted.