This won't kill Instagram and Facebook but will kill WhatsApp unless it's paid for by the business accounts and the ads on the other platforms.
"Continue reading with ads
Visit SPIEGEL.de as you normally would with the advertising and the usual tracking. (You can revoke your consent at any time.)
or
Read ad-free
No sharing of your data with advertisers. Use us for a fee without any ad tracking and practically free of advertising."
Furthermore everybody buy something.
Is practically unavoidable in a system like ours; but also not important in this context as there's an implicit "because it was advertised".
One of the ways I'm weird: it's like I have a homunculus of the Marie Kondo meme before I'd even heard of her, telling me I don't really want to buy $thing, or even receive one as a gift, because it won't spark joy.
As a result, my total expenses included rent, food, commuting, utilities, fun… literally everything, all comes to less than €1000/month on average.
See how people still pay for youtube ads despite there being a premium service to skip them.
see Le Monde's privacy policy[1]
> 4. POUR QUELLES FINALITÉS UTILISONS-NOUS VOS DONNÉES ?
> 4.3. Opérations liées à des partenariats commerciaux
> Partage, échange ou location de fichiers avec des partenaires commerciaux dans le respect de la réglementation en vigueur et des exigences de sécurité ;
Getting served ads without personal data collection as a business model is fine however. Consent is not required for that and so a business model based on that is fine. The ads would be less effective but when done across the board doesn't won't make the model less competitive.
Literally nothing in GDPR prevents you from showing ads.
Alas, a lot of the stalking and tracking are measurements. I wrote our own small adserver. We have first party ads, either our own or with smaller partners like stores, that are nothing but HTML, CSS, and images. Fully contextual, no consent required (and so far ad-blocker safe as we are too small).
But everything with the bigger fish (e.g. Sony) goes through agencies who want full control, who clicks, who sees it, etc. The ads are still fully contextutal, but the measurements require all kinds of consent. So we actually hand the TCF string (some kind of shady adtech consent declaration) that our consent tool generates to that adserver because now that decides what they can do… Generally, if someone uses an adblocker or rejects Google Ads (pretty much a canary option as I can’t be arsed to handle the ins and outs of the tcf string), we default to first-party only.
Antitrust proceedings coming in 3, 2, 1...
The problem is that adverts and stalking are intimately linked ATM. I block companies trying to follow me around my day-today life, I don't block adverts directly but inadvertently because of that link between the two.
GDPR and similar regulations are not about advertising, but privacy. They are usually written to disallow excluding users who don't agree to the stalking part – so “allow ads or pay by other means or go away” is fine but “allow stalking or pay by other means or go away” is not, and the way the ad-tech industry currently is the two can not (easily) be separated.
Ads or no ads is beside the point, GDPR doesn't address advertising, only data privacy. Facebook is allowed to run non targeted ads at any time. If you're asking if they can offer to invade your privacy or pay a fee, no that would not be legal. User consent must be given freely, with no change in level of received service if they say no to tracking.
Ads and targeted ads based on all the data we have on your life are two very different things, claiming that targeted ads are the only option is just bad faith.
That's a nice oxymoron you got there.
Regardless, your comment isn't really relevant. I'm replying to the idea that FB has to break the law or they go bankrupt. Well, in that case, they should just go bankrupt. We shouldn't change the law to accommodate them.
First rule of capitalism: nothing ever makes enough money.
Commercial entities like facebook do not care for “enough money”. They want as much money as possible. Even if knowing everything about me, my family & friends, job & colleagues, etc. only gains 0.01% more (after accounting for the cost of the stalking infrastructure), they will do what is required to get that 0.01%.
Sometimes morality is allowed to get in the way, but the standard of moral core of an organisation tends towards the lowest common denominators within that organisation so things have to be pretty damned disgusting, and fairly universally considered so, before a commercial entity won't do them (or at least take a blind eye to them) in order to make another 0.01%.