6 ms·

The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported s

by maxrmk 6mo ago

The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.

normalaccess 6mo ago
I'm ok with that. for too long the parasites have hidden behind "advertising" as a way to collect data. Say it loud so the kids in the back can here: - IF IT IS FREE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT -
ArchieScrivener 6mo ago
How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?
- nlarew 6mo ago
  That view is overly simplistic. People find real utility in ad-supported tools and apps.
  - samrus 6mo ago
    But the question is if its a net negative for society. People found real utility is leaded gasoline too, but we rightfully had to ban that
m463 6mo ago
nonsense. You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.
- maxrmk 6mo ago
  Those exist! People choose to use gmail because of the scale, stability, and feature set paid for by targeted advertising.
edoceo 6mo ago
a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
- maxrmk 6mo ago
  My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.
  - palmotea 6mo ago
    > My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. You can't actually do that. None of those companies are charities. You pay one way or another.
  - dotancohen 6mo ago
    Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?
    - IAmBroom 6mo ago
      You are acting as if that is crazy talk. It IS possible. And desirable, to many of us. Just not going to happen. But the post above was discussing wants.
      - dotancohen 6mo ago
        From where comes the money?
    - thbb123 6mo ago
      In Europe, more and more public transportation is free, or at least very heavily subsidized The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins. As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that are free, and once again, everybody wins: the costs are very low, and cities are far safer and cleaner.
fc417fc802 6mo ago
The impacts of the model that BigTech currently follows closely resemble those of product dumping. Effectively banning that model would mean alternative subscription based platforms would stand a much better chance of succeeding than they currently do.
samrus 6mo ago
[dead]

by maxrmk 6mo ago

normalaccess 6mo ago

I'm ok with that. for too long the parasites have hidden behind "advertising" as a way to collect data. Say it loud so the kids in the back can here: - IF IT IS FREE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT -

ArchieScrivener 6mo ago

How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?

nlarew 6mo ago
That view is overly simplistic. People find real utility in ad-supported tools and apps.
- samrus 6mo ago
  But the question is if its a net negative for society. People found real utility is leaded gasoline too, but we rightfully had to ban that

m463 6mo ago

nonsense. You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.

maxrmk 6mo ago
Those exist! People choose to use gmail because of the scale, stability, and feature set paid for by targeted advertising.

edoceo 6mo ago

a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.

maxrmk 6mo ago
My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.
- palmotea 6mo ago
  > My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. You can't actually do that. None of those companies are charities. You pay one way or another.
- dotancohen 6mo ago
  Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?
  - IAmBroom 6mo ago
    You are acting as if that is crazy talk. It IS possible. And desirable, to many of us. Just not going to happen. But the post above was discussing wants.
    - dotancohen 6mo ago
      From where comes the money?
  - thbb123 6mo ago
    In Europe, more and more public transportation is free, or at least very heavily subsidized The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins. As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that are free, and once again, everybody wins: the costs are very low, and cities are far safer and cleaner.

fc417fc802 6mo ago

The impacts of the model that BigTech currently follows closely resemble those of product dumping. Effectively banning that model would mean alternative subscription based platforms would stand a much better chance of succeeding than they currently do.

samrus 6mo ago

[dead]