NOYB is not inherently opposed to Facebook and other social media. It does fight against unlawful (and arguably unethical) tracking. If a company can't find a solid business model that works within the bounds established by law, that's not NOYB's problem.

NOYB is perfectly fine with companies making money by placing ads (as long as they preserve your privacy).

This is incorrect, or at least incorrect if you generalize it beyond noyb.

All I want is for the true costs of using a product to be understood. Businesses can and should make money! But it’s wrong to present a product as “free” when it is not. It’s no different than having a fine print click license granting Facebook permission to come take stuff from your garage.

Yes, businesses cost money to run. No, that does not mean that all business models must be permitted regardless of consumer and social harm.

There is no fundamental right to a profitable businesses; if a business cannot be profitable within the bounds we choose to set, oh well.

(And I say this as a huge EU policy skeptic that thinks they are way over-regulating)

I don't understand this argument. Meta makes its money from selling adverts. Meta grabs bucketloads of personal data from us. Meta shows us adverts when we access their systems. NOYB is objecting to Meta grabbing bucketloads of personal data from us. This doesn't stop them selling adverts or showing adverts to us, therefore it doesn't stop Meta making money. There's no reason for Meta to disappear - just for them to stop violating our fundamental rights.

> Since running a business costs money

They should charge a fair price for their product and deliver something good to customers.

No one is forcing Facebook to not charge for their service. They just can’t do it without slurping your data. If they can’t have a business without invading people’s privacy, they shouldn’t have a business. It is baffling that people still shill these practices from big corporations. It’s like saying “I can’t make money without robbing you, so it should be legal for me to rob you”.

> the only result that will satisfy organisations like noyb is that companies like Facebook disappear from the EU.

This is absolutely not true and frankly reads like an argument in bad faith. noyb’s position is clear: don’t invade people’s privacy.

There is the option to pay for Instagram (and probably also Facebook I assume, but not sure) instead of sharing your data in the EU. https://glamsham.com/world/technology/meta-faces-new-eu-comp...

As per the article (in the bold part at the top):

> This is illegal, as the GDPR clearly states that withdrawing your consent must be “as easy as” giving it.

The whole point of the article and this discussion is precisely that you can’t make privacy protections a separate “feature”.

You can still show ads. Literally nothing in the EU prevents you from showing ads.

Edit: You can still charge for your services. Literally nothing in the EU prevents you from charging for your services.

Count me in. I openly say that I would like social media to disappear. I think they're a net negative for society in general and a massive step back for the web in particular. The web was not meant to be concentrated in a bunch of trillion dollar corporation websites.