If you, like me, live in the EU, Facebook is now entirely clamping down and forcing free users to make their personal data available for monetization.

Attempting to access any Facebook domain and perhaps also other meta products will redirect you to the following prompt with a choice between either accepting the monetization of your user data, or coughing up a region-dependent monthly subscription fee: base (for me ~10€) + an additional fee (~7€) for each additional facebook or instagram account you have.

Now, the hidden third option. At an initial glance, it seems like there is no other option but to click one of the buttons - however, certain links still work, and grant access to important pieces of functionality through your web browser.

If anyone has information to add regarding Facebook or Instagram, please do share it. I’ve only (begrudgingly) used the former up until now, but I know many others use Instagram and don’t feel like giving a single cent (nor their personal info) to Meta.

  1. https://www.facebook.com/dyi - perhaps most important of all, now is a good time to make a request to download your Facebook data. Don’t forget to switch to data for “all time” and “high quality” if you intend to permanently delete your account.

  2. https://www.facebook.com/your_information - here you can find and manage your information, but crucially also access Facebook messenger.

  3. The messenger app: Still hasn’t prompted me with anything, though I expect that will change in the not too far future.

Currently my plan is to use messenger to inform any important friends that I intend to leave FB, and where they’ll be able to reach me in the future.

  • b3nsn0w@pricefield.orgEnglish
    645·
    10 months ago

    this has to be illegal.

    like, no, seriously. i’m not a lawyer but i was working on a (since failed) startup in 2018 and distinctly remember how much headache the gdpr caused. literally one of the main things was that you cannot coerce users into consenting to data processing, or make features conditional to them. the gdpr makes a distinction between processing you do to perform a contract (that’s why no one asks for your consent for processing your email address to log you in, that’s implied) and processing you do for other reasons, which require user consent (that’s why everyone asks if they can spam you on the same email – it doesn’t matter that your email address is already on their server, processing it for marketing reasons requires consent of the data subject). opting into these kinds of processing needs to be granular, if it’s not they lose the validity of your consent.

    i seriously hope facebook gets slapped so hard over this that no one ever thinks about doing this again. “paying with your data” should never be a thing in any society that calls itself civilized.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2011·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think you understand how this works. I’m not the biggest fan of Facebook but even I know they’re not a charity they’re not a governmental entity. They’re out there to make a profit and if they can’t make a profit on their ad revenue then they have to make a profit in another way via a subscription service. So they’re literally giving you the option to either continue using them with ads or continue using them as a subscription service. Your other option is to completely delete your Facebook. I don’t see the problem here. You aren’t entitled to a Facebook page, no matter how useful it is to your personal life.

      Edit: a word

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.orgEnglish
        226·
        10 months ago

        then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it’s on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that’s not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.

        it’s not about entitlement, it’s about playing fair. removing the option to “pay with your data”, and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that’s on them, it’s their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.

        and if we’re being realistic, they’re not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that’s what makes this about coercion – if they didn’t have the option to coerce people (and i’m fairly sure they don’t have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn’t be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you’d probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it’s facebook so they’d probably still try to track you).

      • JonEFive@midwest.socialEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        And I don’t think you understand the problem. Nothing is preventing Facebook from displaying ads. Facebook’s issue is collecting user data and using it to directly target ads. They can make it so that a user can opt out of personalized ads and still show ads to that person. Companies would still pay to display their ads, perhaps not at the same rate but that doesn’t mean Facebook would be losing money by serving those users.

        Let’s not act like Facebook is going to go bankrupt if some of their users opt out of data collection and targeted ads.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      I trust that Facebook’s lawyers are payed enough to make sure that this is technically legal. These laws always have loopholes.

      • cosmicrookie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        10 months ago

        It’s a reaction to Facebook methods being deemed illegal in Europe. Although this does not mean than the new model is illegal, it’s an interesting sample of Facebook not always being right even though they have good layers. Both Facebook, Google and many other big tech, operate on the edge of what is legal and often on the other side of it, because it can be profitable enough to just pay the fine if it turns out to be illegal.

        This last move, I believe, is more of a statement than it is an actual change.

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          Oh, yea. I can believe that these lawyers checked it out and determined that it may be illegal, but more like a “pay a fine that’s the equivalent of a bubblegum wrap when scaled down to regular people money” illegal and not “shut down the company and place the CEO behind bars” illegal.

          Now, if it was Xwitter, I could totally see Must ignoring all his lawyers and just YOLOing it.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.orgEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn’t really last)

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.caEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      I would love for FB to be smacked down hard by the EU, but isn’t this just the inclusion of a new option that didn’t exist before, I.e. the subscription? If you push the right button, isn’t that the status quo that you’ve been using all along without any other option? I don’t understand how giving more options is more coercive than before.

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.orgEnglish
        7·
        10 months ago

        no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without “paying for it with your data” at all.

        and if that’s not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that’s alright. there’s nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i’m not a lawyer, but i’m pretty sure that’s illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don’t consent for unrelated data processing. they’re not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don’t want to share their data.

        that’s the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.