zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
> Meta has stated that it had already announced plans to provide users in the EU and EEA with an opportunity to provide consent and will introduce a subscription model in November to comply with regulatory requirements

This effectively means then that if you are in the EU and you'd want to use either Facebook or Instagram you'd have to pay for a subscription then because they presumably won't offer the free-service without personalized ads and since the law prohibits them from doing that then the only way to use either service will be to pay for it..?

>>leksak+Z6
Exactly, and I personally don't see anything wrong with this approach. You can't offer a free service if you can't make money from it somehow.

>>starta+28
They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.

>>latexr+ra
There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient.

It’s easy to show ads. Not that easy to make money from doing so. It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?