[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?

[kulahan]

>why shouldn't they be allowed to spend their data if they want to

I think they should be allowed to. I just think companies should be required to provide consumers a choice.

>why shouldn't services be allowed to cater exclusively to them?

Because many of the companies that exploit their users are monopolies. There are no real competitors to YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc. (yes, I know alternatives exist, but when you have 99% of users on your platform, the others don't quite matter).

Since there's yet to be any regulation to stop this monopolistic aspect, the next easiest thing would be to force them to adopt a slightly different, relatively painless business model.

I don't think you came off as aggressive - don't worry. People should, imo, be free to choose how they want to transact. On the flipside, though, a standard business model would be a benefit to all - those who care about privacy get what they want, those who don't see zero changes. The companies will make the same money off of either, so the only real cost is in developing the tools necessary to accept payments. Those aren't particularly hard to integrate into most websites, though.

>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?

I'm not so sure. I've never seen a YouTube alternative with even 1/50th as many videos which has some kind of cash-based revenue model. I've NEVER seen a search engine which does that, and the same is true for social media (among other things, this isn't meant to be an all-inclusive list, of course).

I'm a bit of a privacy nut, so feel free to disregard this next part, but I honestly think targeted advertising is the source of a huge number of problems. For instance, it's used for highly targeted political ads, which I believe is the root of a lot of the division in the US political scene. This got so bad that Google felt the need to ban their tools being used for highly-specific targeted political ads. Unfortunately, others have not followed suit here.

[catalogia]

Your shitty business model isn't morally entitled to be viable. If you can't figure out how to operate a business without hoovering up tons of PII, then your business deserves to die.

[esyir]

This can easily be turned on its head though. Clearly, your desire for privacy is far larger than everyone else. Why should they have to suffer for your desire. You could use privacy oriented services instead.

[Matticus_Rex]

Why do you get to decide if it deserves to die? If you don't want it hoovering your PII, don't use it.