I don't think you're understanding it correctly, Meta is still free to serve normal contextual ads to all users so they can make money. There are many other sustainable business models they could try out if they aren't able to get their customers to pay for that sort of ad. They are not mandated to provide any kind of service to anyone.

> Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so.

Seems pretty blatantly a mandate to continue providing service regardless of users' actions.

Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me.

> Given that what is shown on the feed is also personalized, the "contextual ads" still allowed bit makes no sense to me.

This is where the line between contextual and behavioural is blurry. In theory, behavioural == who I am, and contextual == where I am/what I am reading.

Shortly after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, we started getting companies selling "ethical" contextual targeting SDKs. The issue was that the "context" was a result of a ML model running on your device and using your location, accelerometer, magnetometer readings (etc...) to define a real-time profile of the user, e.g. "exercising at the <gym name>", "they're having coffee at <restaurant name>".

Meta is free to charge for the service.

They are not free to require tracking for use of the service.

Courts so far seem to mostly have decided that if you are clear and upfront, you can offer "track me" and "I’ll pay you not to track me" as the two options. Very common in Germany.

> Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so.

Not in this decision they did not. Meta is required to provide service even if you don't agree to the transaction.

Incorrect.

They are free to charge for the service.

They are not free to use personal data without consent.

> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it.

That is more or less correct, although some newspapers in Europe are taking the gamble on that and there might be grounds for a middle-ground decision and amendment of the GDPR down the line.

> who provide no value at all

Disagreed, those users still provide value - not only can you still advertise to them based on public information (and users put out a lot of it by liking/following certain content) but they still strengthen the network effect of the product.

The users also provide all of the content.

Providing ads based on who you like and follow still falls under this GDPR decision. It is considered personal data under GDPR.

Maybe whether FB serves these users and the cost-benefit analysis of the value add should be up to FB, rather than mandated by the government.

> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it.

Nope, that's not correct.

Edit: it is correct. Rarely I'm so happy to be wrong.

> Users must be able to withdraw consent at any time and Meta may not limit the service if users choose to do so.

Explain this sentence if my understanding is incorrect.

You're right, thanks for responding! I've updated my comment.

> If I am understanding this correctly, GDPR means that you must legally accept free riders, ie. you cannot deny service if they don't want it.

Facebook is absolutely free to charge everyone.

But yes certain business models (like Facebook’s apparently) are not legal under the GDPR. That’s the point.