Not written in a direct, full, and literal sense, only because it’s difficult to legally define a login, but:
“The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time […] It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.”
Articles that interpret this directive also say that one expectation of this wording is that users should not need to log in. Arguably, registering by scribbling a random password is “easy”. Remembering that password later is “hard”.
skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 8 months ago
Eranziel@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s not infantilization. These bills are designed to prevent “one more hoop” design by the company to make it too annoying to unsubscribe. Your position assumes good faith behaviour by the company with the newsletter. That is absolutely not a given.
Katana314@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The point of the easiness of unsubscription isn’t to make it possible for total idiots. It is to make it frictionless.
Take law - since this technically is on the same subject. So, so much of the legal profession now (unfortunately) involves putting up so many rudimentary roadblocks that people are compelled to settle and agree. Firms suing small companies with single attorneys will send massive archives of paper during discovery. They’ll file an irrelevant “first amendment” claim to defend their actions, all to make sure people’s time is occupied. Even if the opposing council is qualified to respond to and dismiss every single petulant thing, it will take up their precious time, stressing them and reducing how long they have to form an argument.
Law practice has actually similarly introduced legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits and paperwork overload. On the idea of newsletters, it’s especially important for it to be easy because many people have been erroneously signed up for MASSES of them. It should be; Click, Click, gone.