It should be noted that the #EDPB structured the discussion already in a way that makes it hard to fundamentally oppose PoO, instead we are supposed to argue how it could look like and in what situations it might not be appropriate. This is of course biases framing: We do not think that paying for your fundamental rights should be an option at all.

The German association of digital economy (BVDW) basically argues that PoO is already pervasive and users are already used to it, so why regulate at all? They seem to believe that extorting user is just legal in general as there is already so much jurisprudence (prior court decisions). What they are referring to is just one half sentence in a recent CJEU case, which sparked all of this.

Another argument advertising lawyers really like repeating, is how fundamental rights need to be balanced against each other. So clearly the rights of users to privacy need to be balanced against the right of the company to conduct business (i.e. make money in every way they want), right? Wrong! #HumanRights are not equivalent at all to some company shareholders getting richer. This kind of false balance and "company rights activism" really speaks to how little these people care about us.

Thank you @finnmyrstad for also speaking up clearly that fundamental rights are not for sale and that tracking users is not without alternative.

@finnmyrstad Many stakeholders speaking up for PoO say that setting a fee is a business decision which authorities should have no say over. The regulators, in their mind, should not be able to require a business model. But harmful business models are forbidden in many other sectors, too.

It is really nice to see that other privacy advocates agree that there can not be an appropriate fee on privacy and that tracking is fundamentally harmful. We also seem to agree that we do not speak against the right to access to information, on the contrary. Tracking advocates are ostensibly trying to frame us as confused fundamentalists who are ready to give up everything for privacy. But these rights are connected and only work in unison!

We have been accused that we have no idea how little data tracking companies actually have on individual users. Indeed, the adtech industry is not willing to share how they process data. However we have lots of evidence what data is collected and how that can be and is used to single out users and to try to manipulate behavior. In this we agree: Let’s stick to the science! (How about providing access to algorithms so that there can be actual independent research?)

One argument which came up: Advertising companies want to prevent fraud by publishers (see how they support the media?!) and therefore have to track even if there is no behavioral advertising. However, why should I care about this as a user? The burden of proof is on the tracking companies here: Does tracking really prevent fraud and is it the least invasive way to do that? We highly doubt that.