The European Union’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a complex, many-legged beast, but at root, it is a regulation that aims to make it easier for the public to control the technology they use and rely on. One DMA rule forces the powerful “gatekeeper” tech companies to allow third-party app stores...
On meta’s while it is flagrant screw you, they may have a valid argument. Human beings don’t actually need any kind of social media to survive, ergo it is a convenience or luxury that could be charged for.
I’m certainly not agreeing with them, but they may be banking on that style argument and their ungodly amount of money to fight it.
Yes. But we have all gotten pretty used to things on the Internet not costing money. If they start costing money, many people will either not want to or be able to use them.
Really the regulation should be about requiring social media companies to interoperate similar to regulation on the phone companies. You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.
Then is if the social media companies want to charge money people could change to another platform without losing their contacts.
Basically the only reason I still have facebook is to talk to chat with people on there that I can’t contact through other means.
You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.
Boy have I got some news for you about something called “the fediverse…”
You absolutely can charge for social media, just not the way Facebook does. They’re not charging for the service, just for not spying on you, which is illegal under GDPR.
To some people in some places Facebook is actually necessary in order to have a social life or run a business.
We all know Facebook would die if it charged for access, because it would lose its ubiquity that makes it necessary for some people.
What would actually be good is if instead of charging for privacy, they charged for enhanced features - similar to how discord charges for Nitro (I am not defending discord, just using their payment model as an example)
The problem with that payment model though is then you have to actually develop features people want to pay for. And we all know Facebook is creatively bankrupt.
On meta’s while it is flagrant screw you, they may have a valid argument. Human beings don’t actually need any kind of social media to survive, ergo it is a convenience or luxury that could be charged for.
I’m certainly not agreeing with them, but they may be banking on that style argument and their ungodly amount of money to fight it.
Where they lose totally though is the off service data harvesting that isn’t even remotely “implied okay”
Yes. But we have all gotten pretty used to things on the Internet not costing money. If they start costing money, many people will either not want to or be able to use them.
Right. But if things do start to cost money, should that be stopped by laws?
Really the regulation should be about requiring social media companies to interoperate similar to regulation on the phone companies. You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.
Then is if the social media companies want to charge money people could change to another platform without losing their contacts.
Basically the only reason I still have facebook is to talk to chat with people on there that I can’t contact through other means.
Boy have I got some news for you about something called “the fediverse…”
You absolutely can charge for social media, just not the way Facebook does. They’re not charging for the service, just for not spying on you, which is illegal under GDPR.
To some people in some places Facebook is actually necessary in order to have a social life or run a business.
We all know Facebook would die if it charged for access, because it would lose its ubiquity that makes it necessary for some people.
What would actually be good is if instead of charging for privacy, they charged for enhanced features - similar to how discord charges for Nitro (I am not defending discord, just using their payment model as an example)
The problem with that payment model though is then you have to actually develop features people want to pay for. And we all know Facebook is creatively bankrupt.
Charging for privacy is an abuse of your right to privacy, even if the thing you’re keeping private is optional.