Comment on Instagram's monthly subscription

crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

• Maalus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  It does. As long as there is an alternative in the form of a subscription, they can offer a “free” tier like that

  source

  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    It’s not as clear cut as either of us thinks… To my surprise the Dutch seam to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/

    source
• jarfil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Nobody is forcing anyone, you are free to not use the service at any time.

  What they’re doing is turning it into an explicitly paid sevice, and letting you choose whether you’d rather pay in money or in personal data.

  source

  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    As far as my interpretation of the law goes… You can either block your website to all non paying visitors OR you also allow non paying visitors but you are not allowed to blackmail the free visitors to give up their privacy. Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. Amd that’s something the EU definitely doesn’t want to happen (net neutrality). I think the Dutch verdicts will be overruled by Europe one of these days… Or years :)

    source

    • jarfil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      IANAL, but… I don’t think the law says that? My understanding is that the points are not related to each other:

      • You need prior explicit consent in order to gather non-essential tracking data
      • You can charge any amount for any functionality

      That would mean all these combinations would be allowed:

      1. Free, no tracking and no consent
      2. Free, prior consent for tracking
      3. Paid, no tracking and no consent
      4. Paid, prior consent for tracking

      If a site decides to only implement numbers 2 and 3… there wouldn’t be any conflict.

      Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. And that’s something the EU definitely doesn’t want to happen (net neutrality)

      Net neutrality doesn’t apply to services, only to carriers, who are considered more like utilities, but still aren’t required to offer a “free” tier. Services don’t need to offer an option accessible to everyone at all, they can specify whatever requirements they want (with only a few exceptions related to discrimination).

      Large social media platforms… is where current legislative efforts are in. Above a certain number of users, they’re getting defined more as utilities, and subject to more requirements, but still no “free” tier.

      The internet divide exists already: some households can afford 1Gbps symmetric with Netflix, HBO and Disney+… while others can barely affford a prepaid 120MB/month mobile connection (good news is, that’s just 1€/month)

      source

      • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Sorry for the downvote, especially seen that case law hasn’t been settled yet nor if your, or my, reasoning is the correct one. I just hate your arguments though it looks like you work as a part-time Dutch judge :))

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    In case Lemmy didn’t show my reply mander.xyz/comment/4939010

    It’s not as clear cut as either of us thinks… To my surprise the Dutch seam to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/

    source