[ftkudtkfkl]

I don't see why people who opt out of paying the toll should be allowed to use the service. Nobody complains if a walled garden membership fee costs dollars why should data be different as long as you're aware up front of what is collected and that it's the method of payment?

[matheusmoreira]

> I don't see why people who opt out of paying the toll should be allowed to use the service.

Nothing wrong with charging for access to a service. If the web service isn't free, then don't give access to people who haven't paid for it. If the site isn't free, then require payment before serving the web page. This is reasonable.

What happens instead is:

  1. I make an HTTP request
  2. The server sends me the page with the content I want for free
  3. The page comes bundled with ads and tracking malware

That's unacceptable. They shouldn't be allowed to "charge" anyone by including javascript malware to collect and sell private information. If they add useless noise to the content in the form of ads, users are entirely within their rights to delete them. People can rip out and trash the ads of a printed magazine.

They don't want to do the reasonable thing because they'd make less money that way. That's not our problem though. They need to deal with it and stop abusing our trust or one day people will make laws to criminalize it.

> why should data be different as long as you're aware up front of what is collected and that it's the method of payment?

Because nobody knows what that data is going to be used for once it's in a database and up for sale. Nobody is made aware "up front" of the risks of data collection. It's impossible to determine the long term impact of this. It could amount to nothing. It could end up being leaked because of some intermediary's poor information security practices. A government could get access to it and start building dossiers on people or share it with other governments.

[kulahan]

At that point, they can simply charge their users a small fee. I remember reading once that Facebook makes something like $12/yr/user by exploiting their privacy.

I'd gladly pay $15/yr to use that service if I knew they weren't tracking my personal info and the service was ad-free. As it stands, I haven't been on the platform for nearly a decade now, and I'd return tomorrow if this were truly an option (and I actually knew I could trust them to honor the agreement).

IMO, that's how you strike a balance - use for free and we exploit your privacy, or pay a fee (preferably regulated to be similar to the average profit made on a user's private information) and no data will be collected or stored on you, except as is necessary to make the site work (for instance, setting times to your local timezone).

[munk-a]

Ha! Facebook currently doesn't get any income off of me since any information about me is years out of date due to my concerns of how they handle data. I'd come back for $15/yr merely as a nice convenient way to keep open communication with relatives.

[ftkudtkfkl]

You sidestepped my question though, why shouldn't they be allowed to refuse service if the toll is clearly explained? There are plenty of users who are content to receive $free services in exchange for their data, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend their data if they want to and why shouldn't services be allowed to cater exclusively to them? I'm not trying to come off aggressively so I apologize if I have, but to me this just seems like you're unhappy with how other people are choosing to transact. If $free services are so dominant in the market, not saying they are but now I'm speaking hypothetically, that people like yourself can't find alternatives then isn't that really just an indication that the traditional business model has been thoroughly outcompeted and should be moved away from since it's nonviable by comparison?

[Thriptic]

If you don't force that then users will simply say "well I really love Instagram..." and click ok. An average user can't place a value on their privacy because they can't see the long term threat from using these services. This is where we need regulations in the same way that we needed cigarette regulations back in the day to deal with long term health threats.