The "Pay or Consent" advertising model of Meta fails to comply with the Digital Markets Act.

Our preliminary findings show that this choice forces users to consent to the combination of their personal data and fails to provide them a less personalised but equivalent version of Meta’s social networks.

More info ↓
https://europa.eu/!yjjm9k

@EUCommission took you a bit but you figured it out.
Now fine those that made a bunch of money from that, take away all their money or they'll never understand.
@EUCommission
I'm using uBlock origin to block ads. But I'm paying a ransom to Facebook.
@EUCommission that’s great. Now don’t do the exact thing yourselves by introducing #ChatControl where you have to accept to be scanned to use your chat apps!
@EUCommission YESSSSS! I’m still resisting their stupid choice
@EUCommission are you going to allow us to withdraw our consent to chat control?
@EUCommission This in itself is a good thing. Turning around and then forcing the exact same abuse via #ChatControl so you can gather the data is just as bad if not worse.
@EUCommission Hopefully, this'll affect other pages that do the same thing (eg. golem.de).
Golem.de - IT News für Profis

Golem.de - Ständig aktuelle IT-News für Profis und Videos aus Politik, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft über Hardware, Software, Telekommunikation, Games

@EUCommission I am not on Facebook, but I do not understand why a company should be required to offer a free service. Everyone is free to not use Facebook, pay a fee to use Facebook, or agree to be tracked for targeted advertising.
@stefanwagner @EUCommission DMA only applies to gatekeepers, as in social networks that have a very considerable % of the market share. If there's no interoperability by Facebook (they don't use/allow federation) then are people really free not to use Facebook and pay or agree to be tracked and targeted? Unless these hypothetical people are willing to sacrifice one of the most common, if not the most, way to connect with others? I'd strongly argue that this is not a choice for most people (and that perpetually, the more people locked inside their network the harder for others not to be..)
@unexpectedteapot @EUCommission Thanks for that input! I totally get the gatekeeper argument for the smartphone market. It is important to use a smartphone today, and there is almost no way around the two big ones. But the EU does not require them to offer a free phone. Moreover, there are many alternatives to Facebook, and Facebook is not necessary to participate fully in our society.
@stefanwagner @EUCommission I am typing this as a person from one of many societies that completely rely on Facebook/Whatsapp, it is pretty much necessary to participate in my society. From the only place to join communities all the way to basic information about road safety and political announcements. Remember: Facebook actively prevents people from getting any useful data without signing up. Every communications app is available here. This is not a supply issue, but a networking issue. Facebook owns the biggest social networks and it's not even close. If almost everyone you know is on an app or two, they have no reason to install new apps or switch apps, and you are forced to pay or consent. This is the future the DMA is trying to prevent. I'd recommend reading on what Facebook is able to do to societies once anticompetitive/tech monopoly legislation like the DMA is not enforced. It has already happened and many case studies are out there.

@stefanwagner @EUCommission

Imh there two important aspects to consider:

- people entered FB under different conditions, now they are asked to pay or give their privacy away, while their data that is kept hostage of FB since no migration is possible

- many people do conduct part of their life and business in FB, the concept of gatekeeper captures this aspect

@mtorchiano @EUCommission I fully support your first point. Yet, that is different from a complete access to FB that is free.
The second is more complex. If my business relies on FB, maybe I should be willing to pay them. But as someone else pointed out, if societal participation depends on FB, this is different.
IMHO, the EU should rather focus on making the Fediverse the centre of European societies.
@stefanwagner @EUCommission
Agree! Making fediverse central and possibly forcing interoperability (and making migration easy) are essential

@EUCommission to quote Captain Renault: "I'm shocked! Shocked to find that [unlawful behaviour] is going on in here"

surprised_pikachu_face.png

Good news! I liked having an Instagram account to be able to see family and friends’ photos but refused the new terms, so it’d be nice to be able to get it back.
@EUCommission
Czech search engine "seznam" has implemented the same system.

Pay or consent model of Meta / Facebook fails to comply with European Digital Markets Act 🧵 .

Please allow me a minor remark that does not touch the essence of that welcome message of you, @EUCommission

In Mastodon toots, all links count the same against the character limit, regardless how long or short they are. So you could have given the full URI https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3582 . URI shortening services are viewed with distrust by many Fediverse users.

@EUCommission what happens to people that decided not to pay and were forced to accept the abusive terms of service for personalized marketing and ads?