Privacy? What is this article talking about. Ads not displaying in no way implies privacy. They will harvest your data as much as it possibly can either way. All you are doing by paying to remove ads is directly funding the ad business model.
The article confuses privacy and ads-free. As in, you pay $10 a month not to see what the data they collect on you would be used for if you didn’t pay. But they still collect data on you and monetize it in many other ways.
What annoys me most about that kind of logic is that the reverse could also be true - they could potentially run ads like on TV without directly profiling users or violating privacy. But by marrying the concept of ads and tracking, they can play the “but we need to pay for our services somehow” card.
But people pay thousands for cars and still end up the product. I don’t think paying guarantees privacy anymore and if anything is an outdated concept that gives people a false sense of security if they still buy into it. Data collection is the rage now.
Except they’re being tricked into believing they’re paying for privacy, when they’re actually paying for an ad not to be displayed. All the privacy-hostile tracking that went into selecting the ad will still take place but you’re $10 worse off.
This has to be illegal. And if it’s not, it should be. There was a good excuse for a while: the internet is too new for regulations to be in place yet. Well we are well past that, but too many people are making money off of them still not being in place. Fuck.
I know for a fact that I have at least 3 different shadow profiles about me being bought and sold on the Internet. They all have different inaccurate information about me. Because I don’t have a direct relationship with the brokers, any attempt by me to correct or remove one of the profiles would just result in yet another profile.
We need global legislation to make it illegal to hold PII on an individual without notifying them of the fact annually. Failure to do so would have GDPR level consequences.
While Europe may seem to care about privacy, good luck in the states. If you think US regulators care, well, bridges are a hot commodity in this thread and I’ve got em
Is it just me or is this article written under the false assumption that Facebook not serving you ads is somehow the same as Facebook not collecting your data? Because just yesterday I read an article about Costco being in trouble for allowing Facebook’s tracking pixel to collect their customers’ HIPPA-protected medical information through their pharmacy’s web interface. I can’t imagine that serving ads or not serving ads is going to stop Facebook from collecting and exploiting all the personal data it possibly can. Paying to opt out of seeing ads seems like it would, at best, just make Facebook’s data mining less visible.
Not a FB user, yet my firewall and DNS filters at home and on my devices stop a LOT of FBs continual monitoring and profiling. $10/month to stop ads suggests a price to be paid to me and everyone else for using our data, OR they need to let us have an easy way to opt out
I don’t even use Facebook. In this case, I’m not even receiving any services from them, so they should so stop spying on me. If their answer is “pay us $10/month anyway,” which it seems to be then Facebook is more of a protection racket than a legitimate business.
I don’t understand why everything seems to always require “both sides” in reporting. Some things should be written with an obvious slant and not try to walk it back with a BS quote from the other side.
Add comment