I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option.

Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans.

And it demonstrates the impossibility of having a powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.

They were rather happy to do so since one of its selling points is that they do not track users for advertising. Do not underestimate the general publics tracking/advertising fatigue.

You won't get the majority of people on Facebook to pay for the service after you've been giving it to them for "free" for 10 years, you'd maybe convert 10% if that, at which point what use is facebook with most of the users gone?

But a competitor can emerge by providing an alternative service, for a fee, marketing it as "the service that doesn't spy on you".

Now, sure, that will be a niche service, and social networks can't be niche services. The protonmail of facebook or twitter will probably never emerge.

I couldn't care less about anyone outside my family, if they want to contact me they can email or call me by phone.

But I agree with you on the principle that bureaucracy very seldom does only the things I want.

Do you have a source for that?

Permission must be freely given in order to be valid. It is not freely given, if access to a service requires the permission and that permission is not strictly necessary for the service.

However I believe it is good that such option is forbidden, after all the years of abuse of user data at the hands of Google, Facebook and other advertisement companies. Note that ads can still be shown without all the creepy targeting, and ads could still be used to pay for the service, without stealing user data (yes, I call it stealing, because these companies go to great lengths to trick the user into giving the permission). It remains to be shown if ads without tracking could be sustainable to keep services free.

First, it's important to distinguish between the types of lawful bases with which you are processing data. For example, if you were to provide a service of targeting ads to people, you do not need consent to collect the data you need to target your ads: because you are simply fulfilling the contract. One of the problems with the current Facebooks and Googles of the world is that they assume you don't want targeted ads. I think this is an enormous mistake. Sign me up for targeted ads! I want them! I will freely give you information so that I can get targeted ads! In reality, the Faebooks of and Googles of the world are not offering targeted ads. They are offering indiscriminate ads and also selling your data. This is incredibly important to understand.

Next, even if we decide to offer a service and ask for consent for collection of non-related information, there is nothing stopping us from paying for that collection (as far as I can tell). The law states that consent must be "freely given", however this "freely given" means that you can't threaten consequences for non-consent. There is no provision for thanking your customers.

In other words, I'm pretty sure you can charge $5 a month for a service and then give $5 a month worth of credit as a thank you for being able to use your data. (Note: I tried to find some kind of verification of this, but was unable to find a discussion of it either way. I would be grateful for some evidence even if it contradicts my thesis ;-) )

However, there are massive caveats. First you must inform the customers what you are doing with their data and who your are sending it to. Second you must allow them to withdraw their consent. If they withdraw their consent then you must also do everything in your power to notify the downstream data processors to also stop using that data.

And I think that's the real reason you don't see the Facebooks and Googles of the world trying this. They don't want to work with the data in a trackable way. They want to do whatever the heck they want with your data forever. They don't want to inform you that they've sent your data to an organisation that you might disapprove of. They don't want to allow you to cancel your consent without cancelling your service and also do whatever is necessary to stop the downstream processor from using your data if you object.

There is usually a lot of vitriol here when we discuss GDPR however usually this is a result of distilling the argument down to an either/or situation. Either the company is an abusive monster or the law is trying to remove a legitimate business model. It overlooks the idea that there are serious problems with the way this business model works right now and the law attempts to improve that situation in ways that are both useful and frustrating.

Edit: At the risk of bringing the wrath of the EU down upon my employer, I just realised that we offer a 25 GBP voucher for agreeing to sign up to our newsletter. So, there is at least 1 company who does this and I really don't think there is anything wrong with it.

The same I was getting at here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805856

in fact I think I used to get more relevant ads some years ago.

Well, it's never gone to court yet, so I guess you can't say for sure. But that's how it's widely interpreted.

"To access this website you agree to all our privacy invasion and to sell us your soul. We are not asking you, just informing you."

What is now forbidden is to gather identifiable data about people without consent and ability to remove it.

Yes, in the same way (as an exaggerated example) it forbids people selling their organs for profit or jobs with no salary etc

But the parent is right, this is not only about companies, this has a direct impact on users and freedom of expression

They would chose not to have Google and Facebook. The basic principals of capitalism that products are something people want or need. Surveillance capitalism gets around this by exploiting the fact that an average citizen does know nothing about data collection and its scale and the implications for their privacy. GDPR is trying to fix this and also the fuck all attitude to security that most companies have.

All I can say is that this is not my lived experience of Google and Facebook in the EU. This is also not those companies’ interpretation of that law (nor a common one).

There are real arguments against the burden the GDPR puts on companies who hold/process significant PII (which I am sympathetic to), but this is not one of them.

> ... powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.

The same could be said of any democracy. My point is that there is no democratic basis for Article 13. It’s only getting support because IP law is too boring and abstract for most people to get worked up about.

the two aren't mutually exclusive and Europe is right now in a deep growth slump also caused by middle class not moving into entrepreneurship due all the red tape and inefficiencies around having to deal with the particularities of every European state, with the EU aggregating without unifying a mess of regional particularities (i.e. vatmoss)

we desperately need the EU to cater both to the individual and the small business interests working out the kinks of the common market.

Another instance in most EU countries tips (in restaurants/bars) should be subject of VAT, not in the UK for instance.

Different exceptions for deductibles like water for employees (but not coffee and so on)

Add to that mistranslated directives (!), misinformed and uncooperative tax officials and you quickly realize that both "ease of doing business" and the single market are all a bunch of baloney. If I ever launch a B2C service, you can bet your ass I won't be aiming it at the EU market. I'll leave that for when I can afford an expert to handle all the bureaucratic nonsense that doing business in the EU involves.