this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
78 points (98.8% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2157 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It is an increasingly common message from websites: browse for free - if you allow us to track your data and target you with personalised ads - if you don't, hand over some cash.

The model is known as "consent or pay" and, while it may be becoming increasingly common, questions remain over whether it is ethical or even legal.

The UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has launched a consultation on the practice - it will report its findings later this year.

"In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models that involve 'consent or pay,'" the ICO says on its website.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"Don't pay up and we'll harvest your data. Pay up and we'll still harvest your data, but in ways that we can plausibly deny we're doing it."

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

That’s the problem isn’t it.

I’d have no problem paying for privacy respecting access to websites that I used frequently except that I don’t trust them to keep their end of the deal.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Exactly. Fuck em.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Plus they can validate the data they harvest when you pay. They’ve got transactions and identity information once you pay.

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 2 months ago

By Betteridge's law, the answer is no.

On a serious note, to the people who own these kinds of websites: find a more ethical way to make your money or go the fuck out of business.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago

"Should you have to pay for online privacy?"

This is the wrong question to ask. The obvious answer is no.

The real question to ask is: would you prefer to pay for an online service with currency, or with your private data?

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 2 months ago

We already do, with our time, irritation and reduced functionality.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I like the position held by NOYB: Providers of websites that show either a restricted ad-supported version or an unrestricted subscription-based version of the site should be required to offer a third option that is restricted and ad-free for a fee that equals the market value of the information sold to advertisers (usually a few cents per month and per user).

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No privacy for poor people. Sounds about right.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

We could go back to saying fuck them no service for you.

God forbid somebody pay for these services. Meanwhile the fuck big technology folks will screech at Google for running YouTube as a loss leader screaming anti trust.

[–] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

We could just get offline and let the add monsters bully each other until they run out of funds.

[–] superkret 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The question remains: Why should someone pay the cost of providing you a service or hosting a website, if you won't pay with money, your data, or by seeing ads?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They shouldn’t. They should close up shop, GTFO and never speak of it again. The End.

[–] superkret 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean no more search engines, video or image hosting sites, or actually any websites that aren't tied to a paid service, financed by taxes or donations, or provided by hobbyists as a pastime.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I'm perfectly fine with almost all of the commercial web disappearing, except the stuff that actually justifies a price tag, and it mostly being hobbyist content.

But that's really not the issue. Tracking users across sites should not be legal, and should not be possible to consent to.