Hacker News Reader

Comment by neoberg | Hacker News Reader

No it's not asking government to regulate the pricing. If facebook said "it's 100eur/m or you can't use it at all" (which they'll never say ofc) then there wouldn't be any problems because it's then the price of the product. The way it is implemented now is it's the price of privacy - which might be acceptable in other parts of the world but not in EU.

View on HN

One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription.

I don't see how making the user's only choice be to pay this subscription is a solution to that problem?

> One of NOYB's arguments is that cost is too high and thus excludes lower classes unable to pay for the subscription.

Their argument for the price being to high is that Facebook makes about €60 per EU user per year so setting the privacy fee to about €250 seems to be too high. Their argument, the main one, is also that consent should be freely given but if one choice is behind a paywall while the other isn't then the choice isn't freely given.

> Their argument, the main one, is also that consent should be freely given but if one choice is behind a paywall while the other isn't then the choice isn't freely given.

How is it not? Aren't you free to not use the solution?

In the Netherlands, a lot of schools only communicate with parents via Whatsapp messages. How are they supposed to avoid Meta in this kind of situation?

I've personally never touched a Meta product and absolutely never will (and despite this they probably still have a shadow profile of me), but this isn't a simple or even possible decision for a lot of people here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com