>Meta’s answer to this is a “Pay or Okay” system, in which users who do not consent to Meta’s surveillance will have to pay to use the service, or be blocked from it. Unfortunately for Meta, this is prohibited (privacy is not a luxury good that only the wealthiest should be afforded).
I'm a bit torn on this one. If the EU decided to ban the use of personal data for advertising outright, it would be radical but consistent. But what they appear to be doing is to give people a choice to say yes or no while not allowing them to trade their personal data in exchange for services.
Justifying this with a slogan like "privacy is not a luxury" seems weirdly out of touch with any possible reality. If most users were declining the collection of personal data and more services switched to a subscription model, then the entire service would become a luxury for a large share of the world's population. On top of that, privacy would be lost for everybody as there is nothing that eradicates privacy more thoroughly than making a payment.
I'm a bit torn on this one. If the EU decided to ban the use of personal data for advertising outright, it would be radical but consistent. But what they appear to be doing is to give people a choice to say yes or no while not allowing them to trade their personal data in exchange for services.
Justifying this with a slogan like "privacy is not a luxury" seems weirdly out of touch with any possible reality. If most users were declining the collection of personal data and more services switched to a subscription model, then the entire service would become a luxury for a large share of the world's population. On top of that, privacy would be lost for everybody as there is nothing that eradicates privacy more thoroughly than making a payment.