If you live in the EU - you may also be faced with this Meta prompt. Info in text.
If you, like me, live in the EU, Facebook is now entirely clamping down and forcing free users to make their personal data available for monetization.
Attempting to access any Facebook domain and perhaps also other meta products will redirect you to the following prompt with a choice between either accepting the monetization of your user data, or coughing up a region-dependent monthly subscription fee: base (for me ~10€) + an additional fee (~7€) for each additional facebook or instagram account you have.
Now, the hidden third option. At an initial glance, it seems like there is no other option but to click one of the buttons - however, certain links still work, and grant access to important pieces of functionality through your web browser.
If anyone has information to add regarding Facebook or Instagram, please do share it. I've only (begrudgingly) used the former up until now, but I know many others use Instagram and don't feel like giving a single cent (nor their personal info) to Meta.
-
https://www.facebook.com/dyi - perhaps most important of all, now is a good time to make a request to download your Facebook data. Don't forget to switch to data for "all time" and "high quality" if you intend to permanently delete your account.
-
https://www.facebook.com/your_information - here you can find and manage your information, but crucially also access Facebook messenger.
-
The messenger app: Still hasn't prompted me with anything, though I expect that will change in the not too far future.
Currently my plan is to use messenger to inform any important friends that I intend to leave FB, and where they'll be able to reach me in the future.
This reminds me of the movie War Games, when WOPR says, "The only winning strategy is not to play." The only correct choice to make here is to delete your Facebook account.
Indeed, I'd like to, and hopefully will be able to. Unfortunately it is basically the universal method of communication at my campus - unless you use instagram... or snapchat.... :(
Hopefully it'll be possible to get others to make the move, but I'm not really that important in social contexts, nor are most privacy-focused folks.
The evil of the lizard is too great to resist. The only way to win is to deny it battle.
How anyone still has a FB account I’ll never understand—or, I should say, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the insane, “well I have nothing to hide!”/“anyone reading my information will be SO BOOORED LOLOLOL!” mindset and that actually gives 1/10000th of a shit about privacy.
Most of my sports and social activities are organized through various Facebook groups, and I'd lead a rather boring life without it.
That's why.
For me it is still holding on, barely, as a messaging app. I have a few friends and groups that just refuse to message on other things and that's keeping me around. I'm tired of evangelizing better options.
I have friends like that. They never get a response from me.
It pops up every once in a while for things like old classmates getting together. If I weren't on it I wouldn't know about it.
It's also useful for local events like neighborhood festivals that don't get posted on any other media.
I literally had a job that distributed our schedule via a Facebook group exclusively and required an account for requesting changes or interaction about the schedule.
You can easily counter that sentiment by asking them if they also leave their door open when they use a public toilet. Since they got "nothing to hide".
“Anyone that wants to watch me pee is god be SOO BORRED LOLOL!”
police gets called
Or stop caring about data being used for ads. Most people don't 🤷♂️
Imagine how many artificially inflated egos would be deflated all at once if facebook/social media went away.
probably be one the greatest things to happen to humanity.
Isn't that incredible? Turns out that connecting people to one another in this way fosters some healthy interaction for those who choose it but also amplifies loads of unhealthy bs. I'm one of those idiots who 15 years ago thought the internet and social media would bring about something of a second enlightenment, a golden area of progressivism, being well-informed, connected to one another in new and beautiful ways.
25ish years ago we all thought the internet would be a wonderful marketplace of ideas where people wouldn’t be judged by their age, gender, race or whatever, but on the merit of their ideas.
And it did feel that way for a while back when it took a bit of intelligence to get online. However, now that anyone can get online with just a few clicks the morons have learned how to amplify their moronity.
Its both a marketplace of ideas and the cesspool of moronity.
100% because of social media. see my reply to schnapsman
It would have been that. Or at least a lot more like that..
If social media hadnt been invented, and if social media hadn't gamified human interaction with upvotes/likes/etc, which ended up doing nothing but creating a dopamine feedback loop that is directly responsible for the extremity of online discourse today.
Social media is also responsible for using its algorithms to link isolated village idiots and conspiracy nuts, and giving them secure echochambers with which to bounce off of eachother free of outside criticism or view, until they ended up completely disconnected from any hint of reality.
I mean, it sort of did, it's just not quite that simple. A lot of amazing things have come about because of social media. So many artists able to reach people directly without needing gatekeepers like publishers. Movements able to be organized where previously those people would have never interacted.
Commenting this on a post about one of the new gatekeepers is quite ironic.
The route to getting something posted on Facebook or other social media involves 1 gatekeeper who barely involves itself. The route to getting a book or news article published involves more, and they micromanage the content much much more. Just compare what percentage of people have posted something on Facebook vs have had an article published by a newspaper or magazine.
You can post all you want, if you actually want to reach an audience you must comply with silly rules (try putting an innocent non sexualized nipple on an albumcover and posting it to facebook) and you have to pay for visibility because algorithm heavily favours money. On top it's vendor locked-in, there are only very few networks with a very large userbase, and even fewer corporations behind them.
None of that affects people's ability to disseminate information anywhere close to the constraints put on people by traditional publishing. Again, how many people have ever posted to social media vs how many people have ever published a book?
When the "Subscribe" button is gray and the "Use for free" button is blue, you know something's up 🤔
You think they make 10€ per user in ads? I don't believe that, the ad market is very competitive and banner ads don't pay well.
Maybe, maybe not. But the UX pattern they use clearly indicates that they rather have users continue to use the adds version instead of getting 10 euros per month. And that's certainly not because of the goodness of their heart but because it is better for them as a company. And "better for the company" pretty much always means "making more money".
I don't know, I don't even believe, that they are going to stop using your data, even if you pay. So I don't really know what to think. Also im very happy, that I'm done with meta as a whole.
Oh of course they will still use the data of paying costumers. I'm sure that data is more important to them then any add revenue.
That pricing (or any pricing) is unsustainable, all it is there for is to give illusion of choice to try and comply with the law. Your data are useless if too many people choose to pay and Facebook dies, on the contrary the more people allows for refined monetization, the stronger Facebook's business becomes (or get back to before GDPR status).
Also that is just money for serving you ads, i think the real money is advertisers buying your data.
How do they target you, are you the demographic they want to sell to, when are you active online, what do you look at, what are your interests, what values are important to you, etc.
youtube only makes around 2€ per user per month by the most optimistic estimates, and they serve full tv-like video ads which are also clickable and targeted, and a lot of them. that's literally the final form of advertising and it still doesn't reach a monthly 10€/user, the addressable market is just not that big.
the dark pattern is real though. they're going for your data and they're not doing it for money. make of that what you will (i certainly have ideas and they're not pleasant)
Also those are video ads, that get you waaaay more money, opposed to the banner ads on Facebook (at least some)
They also make a great deal of money using people's user data to match them to pages that pay to promote and have their page shown to more people. It's 14 bucks to have a single post "boosted" for a page otherwise your posts will be held at the bottom of the algorithm.
If you give them access to your info, they can keep using it after you've stopped paying.
I've worked for a successful scaleup that was pouring millions into Google ads every month. I have no idea who clicks ads, but it worked for them.
One thing nobody has mentioned here is that paying users devalue the ads for non-paying users. Paying users are more likely to have desposableincomee, and are more valuable to advertisers. If advertisers know that the only people being shown ads are those without the money to buy their products, they won't be willing to buy the ad space.
That's a really interesting point-- I can see that being the case.
It's because they make more money from your user data, but it also doesn't cost you money
What's absolutely scummy is that "laws are changing in your region" is not what happened. The law hasn't significantly changed. What has changes is that the regulator is finally enforcing the law.
Also said law doesn't allow blocking access if you don't agree to the tracking rules, so let's see where this goes.
Law opens for supplier to charge money, if necessary to support the service, which is what Meta is doing.
However, fuck Meta.
Honestly I don't disagree with that bit.
A website shouldn't be forced to operate at a loss, which is what Facebook would be doing if they couldn't strip mine data OR charge access to use the service.
The Law doesn't care if any one company's business model is viable and, Facebook being an American company which avoids taxes like crazy, EU politicians don't care enough about them specifically to change said Law.
So ultimatelly and once they exhausted all legal recourse, Facebook have only two options: "comply" or "leave" (i.e. stop operating in the EU).
Somehow I suspect that selling non-personalized adverts will still make the EU market appealing enough for Facebook to operate in an that would allow them to comply with the local laws.
To me this looks like a play by Facebook to keep their higher revenue model going as long as possibly by breaking the rules and then relying on the slowness of regulators to keep going and any two-strikes policies to avoid big fines.
Shh, people don't wanna hear that. Lol
That's not a loophole, it's a key provision of the law.
True, edited.
I swore off all Meta products before they were called Meta. One of the better decisions I've ever made.
lol, saying "before they were called meta" as if that was a long time ago. That was 2 years ago.
Pepperidge farms remembers
The text is also incredible misleading. The data will still be harvested and monetized, just not for ads.
Even that claim I find dubious. Yes, your data won’t inform targeted ads on Facebook, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be used for targeted ads elsewhere on the internet.
And it most certainly will still be used to make general prediction for the rest of the population
I welcome this change. It makes it clear to the user in realistic terms how they want to engage with the site.
I despise Meta and all their products but they are entitled to charge people for them. Shit ain't free to run, you know.
I'd much sooner they showed this banner and force people to make a decision than what they've been doing up until now, which is to "assume" everyone's fine with their personal data being harvested and exploited without their knowledge or consent.
deleted
Did you omit option 3 for brevity, or because you think it's not a valid option?
deleted
Offline activity stays offline if it never goes online. If you don't have a facebook account, then your probably have thousands of facebook accounts. It will generate an identity for each unique advertising ID you use, and you can always generate new ones in most devices.
Those accounts get combined through fingerprinting and other dark systems.
That assumes that because they're paying they aren't also tracking. They might not use it for ads directly but they'll still sell it to others that will show you ads off Facebook.
Facebook's data is way more valuable to Facebook; it doesn't sell data to third parties. If you think they're going to sell the non-monetisable data to third parties, you have to believe they're willing to introduce this (which is likely to be unpopular) in apparent compliance with data protection laws, while still flagrantly violating them in secret, without any of their many employees nor any of their partners' employees blowing the whistle (and Meta as a company leaks all the time). If they were doing that, why would they bother setting up the fake "pay to not be tracked" flow, when they could pretend to honour people's free requests not to be tracked?
That information is not Personally Identifiable Information and so it's out of scope of privacy protecting law like the GDPR and is probably not what anyone should be worrying about when it comes to data companies.
For those not familiar with the terminology, this means that an advertiser may receive information like, "there exists a person who is 25-30 years old, likes animals, is politically left wing, lives in Michigan" etc - they don't get that person's name or other details that allows the advertiser to go away and advertise to you separately. Nor does it allow the government to find out that you like animals by grabbing the traffic.
Thanks for this detail - I didn't know it included IP address and accurate Lat/Long (though I guess only if you enable location services)
I agree that that would be very de-anonymisable and probably does fall under the remit of GDPR etc.
In the present context, I think whether or not Meta is using such granular data for real time bidding currently, they'd be arguing that all the RTB data is sufficiently covered by their privacy policy. But this new dialog says "your data won't be used for ads" which categorically rules out this possibility. I don't doubt that Meta could be breaking the law where they have a legal argument they can use to claim they aren't - what I do doubt is that they are breaking the law when all it would take is a single leak to demonstrate that they are lying in their privacy policy. 4% of global revenue is not to be trifled with!
Don't use Facebook is the best answer but if you must then the next best option is:
You don't owe your enemy anything. Stop using spyware as a business model.
Yeah, even getting them to display this banner is a victory in itself.
More like give us money, while also paying up with your data, that we won't use for tracking, only for resell to people that will sell us back tracking details in a maybe not currently illegal way. Also we also are the "people" that will buy the info and sell back the tracking.
Fun fact: In Illinois we actually got pretty nice checks from Facebook over them violating a biometric law the state has. I believe most of us in the class action lawsuit got around $300 each.
this has to be illegal.
like, no, seriously. i'm not a lawyer but i was working on a (since failed) startup in 2018 and distinctly remember how much headache the gdpr caused. literally one of the main things was that you cannot coerce users into consenting to data processing, or make features conditional to them. the gdpr makes a distinction between processing you do to perform a contract (that's why no one asks for your consent for processing your email address to log you in, that's implied) and processing you do for other reasons, which require user consent (that's why everyone asks if they can spam you on the same email -- it doesn't matter that your email address is already on their server, processing it for marketing reasons requires consent of the data subject). opting into these kinds of processing needs to be granular, if it's not they lose the validity of your consent.
i seriously hope facebook gets slapped so hard over this that no one ever thinks about doing this again. "paying with your data" should never be a thing in any society that calls itself civilized.
Yeah I really hope the EU smack'em down. Asking users to pay a fee only because their countries law limit an illegal practice is astonishing
I don't think you understand how this works. I'm not the biggest fan of Facebook but even I know they're not a charity they're not a governmental entity. They're out there to make a profit and if they can't make a profit on their ad revenue then they have to make a profit in another way via a subscription service. So they're literally giving you the option to either continue using them with ads or continue using them as a subscription service. Your other option is to completely delete your Facebook. I don't see the problem here. You aren't entitled to a Facebook page, no matter how useful it is to your personal life.
Edit: a word
then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it's on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that's not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.
it's not about entitlement, it's about playing fair. removing the option to "pay with your data", and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that's on them, it's their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.
and if we're being realistic, they're not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that's what makes this about coercion -- if they didn't have the option to coerce people (and i'm fairly sure they don't have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn't be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you'd probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it's facebook so they'd probably still try to track you).
Every argument you make here is completely silly.
This is a for-profit company and it has always been a for-profit company. They have no obligation to host you on their site and they can stipulate any conditions they like. If they want to make it a choice between paying a subscription fee or you consciously acquiescing to their collecting your data and advertising to you using that data, then that is 100% their right. Equally you have the right to opt out by closing your Facebook page and deleting all of your data on their site. I will reiterate, you are not entitled to a Facebook page!! This is not right, it's a privilege granted to you by this greedy-ass corporation in exchange for monetary compensation, either through targeted ad revenue or a subscription fee. Deal with it.
then don't host the site if they don't want to. or charge people for shit if they want to. i'm not asking for them to not do that, i'm asking for one thing and one thing only: don't make service, free or not, conditional to consenting for data processing not related to providing that service. that shit, to my best knowledge, is illegal in the eu, and it's for a damn good reason.
facebook is not entitled to a profit either just because they're for-profit. they need to earn it. and no, they don't have a right to take a "whatever means necessary" approach on it -- just like a company cannot legally rob people, or cannot legally entice minors into gambling addictions to make that money, in the eu it also cannot coerce people into giving up their personal data just so it can then profit off of that either. consent for that needs to be given willingly, without pressure, and without deception. why is this principle so hard to understand?
you paint some ridiculous strawman arguments here in your efforts to lick the zuck's boots, but i never once asked for facebook to continue giving their service for free if they don't want to. the only thing i said is "paying with your data" is not a valid idea under the gdpr (and honestly, it shouldn't be a thing in any civilized country.) if facebook relies on it, tough shit, their options are to figure out an alternate revenue stream or go out of business. that's how it works for every other business as well.
Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you. The other option is to completely close your Facebook account and delete all of your data on their servers. An argument can be made that they should make it easier to remove all of your data and several people that I know have made that argument. But other than that I don't see anything they are doing as being illegal, in the EU or otherwise. Sure the way they presented is a pretty scummy but what do you want? It's Facebook and it's run by greedy corporate dick heads. If you don't like it delete your Facebook profile.
I also find it hilarious that you don't think they have lawyers who specialize in European Union law that don't know exactly what the fuck they're doing. This is a multi-billion dollar company, they can afford the best goddamn lawyers.
right there. you're a parody of yourself lmao.
a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it's worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that's just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.
you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you "don't see it", playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?
Read carefully:
You 👏 do 👏 not 👏 require 👏 a 👏 Facebook 👏 page 👏 to 👏 live.
It is the very definition of superfluous luxury service. Just delete your page and be done with it.
Your thinking is so pinned-down by business-centric presumptions it's ridiculous.
The Law doesn't give a shit about any one company's chosen business model, otherwise Murder would be legal as long as it was done by employees of an incorporated "Murdering Services" company.
Further, Facebook is an American company which avoids tax like crazy, so in Europe even politicians don't give a shit about their business model, which means these Laws were not even adjusted to account for Facebook's business model when they were created.
Facebook's business model and even survival as a company are wholly irrelevant: the Law is the Law, and Facebook either obbey it or they stop operating in the Jurisdictions whose laws they don't want to obbey - ultimatelly, all legal recourses exhausted, "comply" or "leave" are their only two options.
And I don't think you understand the problem. Nothing is preventing Facebook from displaying ads. Facebook's issue is collecting user data and using it to directly target ads. They can make it so that a user can opt out of personalized ads and still show ads to that person. Companies would still pay to display their ads, perhaps not at the same rate but that doesn't mean Facebook would be losing money by serving those users.
Let's not act like Facebook is going to go bankrupt if some of their users opt out of data collection and targeted ads.
Literally nearly every website on the internet does this. Even the ones you pay a fee to subscribe to.
You have the choice to close your account with Facebook if you don't like their policy. Again, this is a completely for profit company, they have no obligation to host you on their site.
Are you even a little familiar with GDPR?
Nobody is acting like they have a right to Facebook in this thread. Likewise, nobody is saying that Facebook shouldn't be trying to make money. The issue at hand isn't the choice between a fee and ads. The issue is that you have to pay to opt out of targeted advertising and that they're using dark patterns to encourage people to consent to targeted advertising.
So the suggestion above that this may be illegal is accurate. You're so focused on a person's ability to not do business that you're ignoring that there are laws regulating this type of behavior.
I trust that Facebook's lawyers are payed enough to make sure that this is technically legal. These laws always have loopholes.
It's a reaction to Facebook methods being deemed illegal in Europe. Although this does not mean than the new model is illegal, it's an interesting sample of Facebook not always being right even though they have good layers. Both Facebook, Google and many other big tech, operate on the edge of what is legal and often on the other side of it, because it can be profitable enough to just pay the fine if it turns out to be illegal.
This last move, I believe, is more of a statement than it is an actual change.
Oh, yea. I can believe that these lawyers checked it out and determined that it may be illegal, but more like a "pay a fine that's the equivalent of a bubblegum wrap when scaled down to regular people money" illegal and not "shut down the company and place the CEO behind bars" illegal.
Now, if it was Xwitter, I could totally see Must ignoring all his lawyers and just YOLOing it.
i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn't really last)
I would love for FB to be smacked down hard by the EU, but isn’t this just the inclusion of a new option that didn’t exist before, I.e. the subscription? If you push the right button, isn’t that the status quo that you’ve been using all along without any other option? I don’t understand how giving more options is more coercive than before.
no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without "paying for it with your data" at all.
and if that's not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that's alright. there's nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that's illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don't consent for unrelated data processing. they're not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don't want to share their data.
that's the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.
What does "like" mean here? What's it for?
It's how people have been talking for, like, 20 years now at least
Rather, fucked american english. Like, fucked american english. Like, fucked. Like, like! Like!
flair, mostly. lol
Assuming you're not a native English speaker. It's a filler word. It doesn't really mean anything, it's used more to communicate tone.
Being native doesn't make one being able to speak properly.
How much you wanna bet your info will still be used for ads even if you subscribe?
Lol the wording and design of it all. Subscribe to use without ads, picture of a credit card. Versus Use for free with ads, picture of a shooting star:
Plus the little "your current experience" highlighted in green. And finally "use for free" highlighted in blue.
They really want you to go with the second option so they can try to prove to the court that people want free stuff. When most of them were likely unconsciously coerced into it.
The big mean regulator is trying to make us charge you money. Click here to pay up or click here to stay free.
That's, uh, a little bit hyperbolic.
Not really, like, you can't communicate with your family. In my case, i live in Germany, but my family lives in Brazil. It's the only thing keeping me on Facebook, until now.
Thank God my family switched to WhatsApp for all family stuff. Since there are also family members in Colombia & USA, we have to keep a fixed online place, so we can communicate quickly.
WhatsApp is owned, by meta, just like Instagram. So it is rather when and not if we'll start seeing ads everywhere.
Yes, really. Your family can find any number of other ways to communicate. Facebook does not have a monopoly on international communication.
I know, but the problem is to convince everyone to use something different. 70, 60, 50 ,40, 30 year olds ( i think anyone up to 30 is much more open and used to deal with software ) a plenty, living in different countries.
I really tried.
That's not Facebook's fault. You can't say that a service is holding people hostage when the actual situation is that those people aren't interested in trying other services.
It may not be fb's fault directly, but they hold the keys to an enormous resource which should be properly regulated. Telling op to just make the choice ignores the structural issue at hand. It's a bit like saying if you don't like all the problems of your country, just emigrate. That's everyone's choice, but it isn't practical as a general solution. Emigrating in a digital sense is far easier, but do we wait for these common goods to be enshittificated and reinvented or can we skip some suffering and seize control already.
Lol my guy, I have actually completed an emigration process. Comparing it to finding a different free communication service is fucking bonkers. Facebook doesn't hold the keys to anything. If the users leave, they have nothing. Finding a replacement is practical and its not anything like emigrating to another country, holy shit.
You're making it sound line Zuckerberg has your family locked in a basement. If that's the case, maybe you should go to the police, rather than complain about it on Lemmy.
On a more serious note: if you're one of the family members that is "only" reachable on meta, you're part of the problem. If you want to be part of the solution, tell people where else they can reach you, then delete Facebook.
So, just excommunicate everyone who won't go through the trouble of emigrating elsewhere. This is practical to you?
What is practical is that they don't need to "emigrate". They can stay on Facebook for all I care. But if they want to stay in touch, they just have to add me in 1 out of several apps.
Like I said, you can stay on Facebook and be part of the problem, or you can leave and be part of the solution. The more people who do it, the easier it will be be for the remainders.
Lol for the record pal, Facebook can get fucked. I haven't used it in years. Maybe don't assume someone's stance just because they said you were being hyperbolic - which you're still being.
I'm just glad they didn't use the term Literally.
"actually" serves the same purpose in their sentence.
Damnit, you're right.
Dark pattern of the week: button colors.
Can you guess which button Meta really wants you to press?
"It's free and always will be"
It is free. You are not paying. You couldnt even get money for your information so its not like youre selling it
Where can i sell my data? I want money.
https://surveys.gobranded.com/
There are tons of sites for this, it was a lot more popular a decade ago before sites realize they could just steal it
Go fill some surveys for Google Play Store credits or something.
There are services out there that will pay you (either real cash or with points) to fill out surveys all day. They'll pay you less than they'd pay someone like Facebook though, since people are more truthful on these platforms than when filling out these surveys.
They dont want my data, they want to ask me dumb questions. And they dont pay
Well, you could. Taking part in surveys in exchange of monetary compensation is a side hustle for many.
And on the other side is sourcing data a huge expense for many research endeavours.
That's why everybody is buying from Google & Facebook. Because they offer it for relative low cost.
Only if you think your time and personal information are free.
You might want to work on your self-worth and business sense if you think that.
Recently uninstalled:
I feel free. My phone feels lighter, almost. My brain feels lighter.
Same! I am enjoying the fediverse as a largely nontoxic replacement.
Agreed. It's not too mainstream (yet) so not too much drivel has started seeping through lol. Here's hoping it'll stay this way. Feels very wholesome so far! Feeling at home already.
don't forget to delete the accounts too! I've seen people just deleting the app and thinking their account is gone too.
Very good tip! To be honest, I'm not ready to delete the accounts yet. I'll just run the services on my computer in containers (Firefox) and with μBlock Origin, so there's minimal impact of this change for me.
But it does feel very nice not to be able to do much when I pull out my phone as a reflex. I feel limited in a positive way. Much rather be talking to you fine folk than the drivel I was often interacting with on Reddit. 😁
LOL why are people using Facebook?
I use it for one single purpose, browsing marketplace. I look for local used game stuff and that's really it. If something peaks my interest I have my girlfriend message them since she uses messenger, I refuse to have it on my phone.
Even then, I'm using Firefox with UBO so even if they do use my browsing data for ads, I ain't seeing them anyway.
Turns out you can in fact, cuck the Zuck
Actually no I'm just horribly illiterate 😂
It’s okay. I’ve misspelled “peek” as “peak” multiple times in the last week.
English just be like that.
Don't forget to use a facebook container on FF as well.
Firefox with the right extension can do wonders but for Facebook, it is like trying to save yourself from an atomic bomb with a shield made from led. They hire the best developers out there including OSS people to get your personal data one way or another. The day I learned advertisers abuse html5 canvas using miniscule differences between CPUs, I understood the money and development involved.
To communicate with people, to follow various pages and groups that notify me of the current events regarding the topics that interest me, to buy and sell stuff in some groups, etc. At least in my case.
Memes
The real question, in EU, is not Facebook (or even Instagram). It’s WhatsApp. Business talk with WhatsApp, family talk with WhatsApp, meet a person in a bar? Yep WhatsApp or you are the weirdo
As soon I got the banners, I uninstalled the app and switched to friendly. Not sure if I have such luxury with WhatsApp…. Maybe time to explore matrix? 🤷
I would love to ditch WhatsApp, but then I wouldn't be in touch with my family half as much, and it would be a lot more difficult to get anything done.
I am in Spain where people simply assume you have WA, and the majority of small business use it extensively.
Remind those businesses that if they don't have explicit consent from the people saved in their contacts, they are violating article 44 of the GDPR.
Same if their websites use Google Analytics without asking for consent first.
What can facebook really gather from whatsapp? Asfaik messages are encrypted, and other than that I'm not really giving info to whatsapp, like my estado and date of birth but that's pretty much it.
Like I get it from facebook, you are constantly looking things up that can tell what u like, hobbies, or political affiliation, but whatsapp?
They're "encrypted" meaning they claim so and nobody was able to prove otherwise.
Even assuming they really are encrypted end-to-end, the app can still spy on you directly on your phone. It has access to all your conversation history and everything you type. 😊
Now, I'm not saying they're sending that verbatim to Facebook but it's enough to get the gist of a conversation. Like, that you were talking about hair products. That's enough to be able to sell some ads to you and your conversation partner.
WhatsApp is truly end-to-end encrypted using the signal protocol. The same protocol Signal uses (believe it or not). Meta truly cannot read your messages. But they CAN see who you are messaging, how often you message them, when you are messaging them, where you are when you message them, and plenty more. They can collect metadata. Metadata is the data they actually care about. Honestly, it doesn't matter as much if you're asking your friend if they want to hang or sending nudes. The metadata is what they want, and it's exactly what they're collecting.
Just because it is end to end encryption, doesn't mean one of those ends can't send those messages to Facebook (also end-to-end encrypted).
Assuming they didn't pervert the signal protocol, then they really really cannot access your messages, even if they wanted to. The encryption key would only be stored on the local device. Though, it would honestly benefit them to actually do this. They then cannot provide user data to law enforcement no matter how many warrants there are, they cannot be susceptible to rogue employees stealing the information, and the list goes on. And like I said, they really don't need to know what your messages say. They get all the information they want from the metadata.
hmmm got it, might be intrtrsting to do an experiment where u look up your facebook feed, see what products u get ads for, yhrn talk with a friend over on whatsapp about a certain product or typr of product u want to buy, and then check if u start getting ads for said product
It has happened to me.
r u sure u only talked/mentioned it through whatsapp, and didn't do any prior or post searches of related things in a browser?
just saying cause it' easy to miss
Positive.
WA is also owned by Meta, and was only being used by my privacy-oriented friends. We swapped it for Signal pretty much instantly when the news came, but getting others to move over has been a slow fight.
Yeah… the result is that now I have WhatsApp, signal, telegram. 99% of my contacts are on WhatsApp, maybe 20% are on telegram (and a number of group chat are there) and 1% take it or leave it has signal (and no group chat).
In practice the only one I can get rid of is signal (that is also the one I would like better 🙄🙄)
Matrix is pretty good! I use Element. It's pretty much as usable as anything else I've used for similar purposes: Discord, Slack, Messenger, etc.
Hard part is obviously getting people to switch over. But it's ready for normies!
The ElementX developemnt is looking really really good!
I was more thinking about using the matrix <> WhatsApp bridge for avoiding the pop up. It’s impossible to migrate people (especially strangers)
Easy fix. Stop using crap like meta, or Reddit, or TikTok, or Twitter or another degenerated social media platform...
Great. Now tell that to my uni please.
your uni is using facebook?
That includes lemmy, right?
Right?
Nah, Lemmy can somtimes be a little cringe and insulting but has no narcisitic sociopaths in charge like the others have 😅
I'm surprised the EU hasn't pounced on them for GRPR infringement, maybe there's a loophole Meta's exploiting. Being total assholes ain't a crime.
This is their reaction to new privacy laws in the EU. I'm not sure I'll fly.
Maybe, but there are whispers that EU is not happy with this since it seems to violate the GDPR.
The button colours alone are in violation.
I don't know about the rest of EU, but in France for some reason it was decided that this type of choice, i.e. "pay a subscription or accept all trackers", was in the spirit of GDPR.
I think it's bullshit, but hey, it helped me choose whose services I will never use any more (really, most of those were already shit before they tried to pull that one, no big surprise here).
In Italy lots of online newspapers do the same: either you subscribe, or you accept the tracking
Which law?
None. The statement is false. The law didn't change. What did change was the enforcement thereof.
You know, the law. That one. That law that changed. The law that changed in your region. That law. That recently changed.
No law changed, they simply are now obligated to respect the GDPR (at least formally).
Sounds like a lot of hassle, when the real answer is to just get rid of Facebook
I always choose 'fuck whoever is giving me an ultimatum'. That's the control freak. That's the source of problems.
lol, that's just not true. If I give my alcoholic friend the ultimatum of "you need to get sober or we can't be friends" I am not a control freak or the source of problems. Also, every online service gives you an ultimatum. It's called the Terms of Service. Either you agree, or you don't use it. Yes, even here. Guess you can't use anything, or go anywhere. Don't get me wrong, Meta is the scum of the earth that we as people desperately need to get rid of, but you're really picking the wrong fight with the "ultimatum".
"Your info won't be used for ads" - but it will be used in other ways
You can delete your account(s) clicking on "accounts in this Account Center" btw
doesn't that just hibernate your account?
It said "Delete" but Meta could very well be lying to me
This forced me to look into hosting an own social media as a replacement for me, my friends and acquaintances. Where we can chat, upload files, organise events, and make posts about all sorts of things.
Anyone got a recommendation for software, preferably open source?
Humhub looked promising, but the "free" version only allows 5 people, which is just dumb.
Akkoma dropped support for chats, which sucks tennis balls.
The others are too technical for many of the people I know. They just want something like Facebook, but that I host myself. Not the "every device is its own node" type of deal.
And connection to the fediverse definitely isn't a necessity.
All by all Friendica looks the most promising.
Friendica should fit the bill right there for you. Or if you don't want ActivityPub, check out diaspora*. There's also Hubzilla which uses AP as well, but internally it uses its own Zot protocol.
I was looking into Friendica, and it also looks promising. But the lack of an ios app may be a dealbreaker for some of my friends.
Diaspora has the same issue, although the integration with other social media is interesting.
Huzilla is a bit more for filesharing, isn't it?
All in all, I think Friendica is indeed one of the better bets.
How did this specifically make it worse? They didn't follow the GDPR before so choosing free is the exact same as before.
This is just their latest attempt at avoiding the GDPR and last I checked taking payment for not tracking someone is a grey zone in the GDPR. After looking at the law it shouldn't be allowed but it might be. Who knows. Other sites do it as well.
If anything this has bought them time.
Because I was willing to pay, but not for the exuberant amount they ask.
It also made it worse in the sense that now friends were discussing it on their own, which did not happen before.
you can use create a matrix server for e2e conversations.
Mastodon?
Sadly no groupchat features.
Otherwise, solid choice!
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19059 they are adding one
My relatives are using FB as crazy. Like too much. I was telling them how Facebook is tracking and selling users data, thats why i dont use FB and all i have seen in their eyes was wanting me to shut the f*ck up
Same. That look that says:"I don't care, I dont want to know, I just want to use (insert any social media). They have no idea what's collected and used without their knowledge.
Same for TikTok. I tried to warn them about the Chinese government watching with TikTok over their preferences and I still get that same "I don't care" look. But then they receive a promotional mail and complain they get spammed.
They figure looking at funny cat videos is worth the spam. Of course, I like the idea of paying users for their data. If data is the new oil, and we are the oil wells, it's time they paid for it.
They say "I have nothing to hide" but talks sh*t about China and comunism 😁
I took a five year break for this reason. As I embraced being an artist it seemed the only way to know what is going on locally in my stupid medium-sized Texas town is Facebook. Even local government news was only on Facebook. So if I wanted to find calls for art locally to submit for galleries then I had to join. Luckily with two fences and uBlock Origin the only information they get is by logging any text I put in. It's a lot of work to try to maintain my privacy though and no official app ever. I use a couple container apps from F-Droid, but they barely work most of the time so it mostly has to be on Desktop. I've tried to get a few friends to switch to federated apps and they look at me the same way. Even my partner's casino job requires a Facebook account because if you want someone to take a shift for you it's the only way. Also any company news. It should be regulated as a utility.
Exactly. I was looking for renting an appartment. I was looking on specific real estate websites how it should be but my girlfriend found the best one to rent on Facebook. Shouldn't be like that
The real dark, unexplainable and one of the most complex software after Google services is Facebook.apk. No baseless privacy claim that Google promises is valid if one installs and runs Facebook as it isn't in its nature. Anyone, organisation pushes or even requires an application in today's age is spyware. The Guardian even says "less ads" and they are supposed to be a bit better guys. How does it show less ads? Because it accesses these https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.guardian It isn't just an Android thing, Apple tried their best to stop Facebook from leeching but there isn't anything to do when you "check in" at home.
It's actually much much worse to use the preload version that came with your phone versus the Play store version. The play store has many rules they force devs to comply with that aren't true for preloads.
They were already monetizing your data, just like websites were already using cookies to track you before the EU made it mandatory to inform visitors about this.
Same. Although I have a few services where I use it to log in, sooo...
There should be a "neither, close my account now" option.
Yep I saw that a few days ago (I live in rep. of Ireland), I then deleted my account because fb for me is just a time waster. My mother decided to opt for the free version and so now she sees more ads than friend activities. She'll probably deactivate her fb account so she can continue to use messenger.
Unrelated but we just crossed to northern Ireland today after road tripping the wild Atlantic way and some other bits in ROI, dear god your country is gorgeous 😍 and everyone was so nice too.
The boasts of having already left Facebook and the calls for others to abandon it are predictable and tedious. Everyone already knows Lemmy is full of people who wouldn't touch Facebook with a 10 foot pole. Y'all are not contributing anything by crowing about it; you're just making noise.
It is good to know what's going on out there, I haven't touched facebook in years and I didn't know there was now the possibility to oay for it and you'd get a screen like this.
This info can alwaya be valuable and I'm thankful this guy posted it
I was complaining about the comments, not the post itself.
I recently discovered Pixelfed and Friendica on the Fediverse. They are the equivalent to Instagram and Facebook, respectively. Perhaps now would be a good time to migrate over to those platforms?
Just give them a try!
will mainstream public make a move though? it will be great if my friends make a move to pixelfed but they just won't.
Any time sooner than later is a fantastic time to have nothing at all to do with facebook.
That's true, and as with any networking platform, whether that be a social media site or a messaging app, who you know and how many of them are on the platform is a strong determining factor in whether you join that platform or not. For now, I just have an account set up on both of those sites, just in case, but I'm not holding my breath for any of my close friends to join anytime soon.
Isn’t this just an additional paid option and the ad option is what everyone already had and everyone outside the EU still has?
That option is still there for me (in addition to the new option to pay) in the Instagram app, in the settings there is an ad settings option which sends you to the website where you can configure that.
Yup. Basically, you need to enable ads to use the free, ad supported platform.
It's not about getting people to pay. It's about coercing them into giving their explicit consent. Yes, "coercing" and "consent" in the same sentence, let that sink in.
You choose to visit Facebook. They've always provided services funded by your data. Now you get to choose between that model or compensating them directly.
Where does the coercion come in?
PS, I hate Facebook and don't use it in case that matters somehow.
EU recently accused them of not asking for data processing consent properly. This seems to be their response.
And same here, mate. No FB in sight for me either.
This exactly. Facebook can only advertise to EU users with targeted ads if they explicitly opt in. The paid version only exists to give us a "choice", making targeted ads legally acceptable as we now have an alternative by paying for the service. German newspaper sites have been applying this practice for quite a while now. Those that get fined are only those that ise the wrong legalese.
I'm still curious where coercion comes into it?
Let me rephrase to avoid this hyperbole. I mean that the users are presented with two options: one being pretty much bonkers and one being agreeing to the terms. FB was seemingly unwilling to make it a clear yes/no question it is (or should be according to GDPR) everywhere else and decided this manipulation is much more likely to get them the "yes" answers.
++ Totally. 10€ a month can't be close to the value of the data. If the cost was actually based on the value of the data it might be a valid choice.
The value of the data gets tricky fast. If they made everyone pay $10 for the service, they would make less money. They would make less money because fewer people would use the service. To offer it for free means more people would use it. While each person may provide less than the subscriber, the masses of the free users makes more money than the subscriber.
To profit more from free users, you just have to have enough people willing to use it for free, and wouldn't pay for it, to where their revenue exceeds that of the $10 plus the added cost to run the service with more users using it.
Just for easy numbers, let's say a free users makes Meta $1.00 a month. If there is a group of 20 people who use meta, and only 1 of those 20 people is willing to pay $10, then the paid service would make them $10 where the unpaid service would make them $19. Obviously super simplified math, but honestly the number of people that would pay for Facebook is probably a lot less than 1 in 20.
I am not saying $10 is a fair price, but rather it's not a simple task to pick a fair price. Not that meta wants a fair price anyway.
You're absolutely correct... However it will be very interesting to see how this doesn't violate the GDPR... recital 42 says:
“Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.”
Link with more details: https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/
Withdrawing consent in this case causes the detriment of having to either pay or lose access to the service... So this clearly isn't "freely given" consent.
They cannot force meta to give their service for free. If they did that, then they could do it to every online service ever. Services cost money, so either it comes from data collection and ad revenue, or a subscription (or in Meta's case, data collection and subscription). To force them to let users use the service without data collection or ads would mean forcing them to give away their service for free. Regardless of if you like meta, you cannot deny the fact it costs a shit ton of money to keep the service running. Obviously they make a shit ton of money^2^, but to attempt to force them to provide it for free makes no sense.
The GDPR does not in any way disallow Facebook from running ads, regardless of the users consent. But if the user doesn't consent, Facebook can't run targeted ads on the user.
It’s never been free. We’ve always paid with our data but now they’re being extremely forward about it in hopes to comply with EU laws.
People said the same thing about twitter. People paid.
Yup. Got it last week. Found this shit so disingemuous it almost pissed me off more than the privacy violation itself. I dont use any of Meta’s stuff except for WhatsApp out of necessity (some groups from the kids’ school), but i keep getting dumped into FB by busineses that dont have a proper webpage…
There's a missing third option: Don't use it at all.
Same on IG
Why even use facebook products
Oh no! Anyway...
If only I still had a Facebook account that required me to use this awful website.
y'all I think that we might finally be leaving the era of the internet where everything is free. overall, I think this is a good thing. the problem is that unless there's legislation preventing them these companies are absolutely gonna double dip; they'll charge you a fee and then sell your data anyway.
Yeah that what I tought: if I pay, what is my guarantee you won't collect and sell my info on top of that?