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?

>>justap+lK1
> There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient.

Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business?

> 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?

More like banning formula 1 cars from suburbs. People survived before without personalized ads, what will not survive is making 10-digits of profit every quarter and the associated butchery of our life and institutions in the pursuit of profit.

>>polyga+VN1
When you're debating the merits of the law in question, it doesn't seem like a valid defense to say "if they can't do business under the law then that's their fault".

If I say "car dealers can't sell cars that go faster than 10mph and if they go out of business then they shouldn't exist", it's clearly fallacious, and I don't see how this is any different.

>>foota+OP1
It is different. Rules and laws are supposed to make sense, but the one with 10 mph is not. There are limita to 250 kph in Europe and I dont see car dealers going down. Also, for years there are emissions regulators that make life hard for auto makers, but they obey and still sell cars.

>>kaftoy+kT1
> Rules and laws are supposed to make sense

Agreed. So why do none of the EU's moronic laws make sense?

Most normal people are happy when they come across a useful product or service as an ad in their Instagram feed. After these laws, that won't be possible anymore for an entire continent of people.