Aside from the concept of selling Privacy being reprehensible…Meta has the nerve to propose this?!
If Meta can offer to sell Privacy with a straight face, what’s next?
- Aldi offering a “platinum members lounge”?
- A Comcast paid service where they call all your recurring bills and negotiate the inflated prices down?
- How about an upcharge at the entrance to Walmart where they pinky promise to have an employee available to unlock the electronics case?
Meta, your brand awareness is astonishing. Meta couldn’t sell me privacy at any price, whatsoever; because I don’t have any historic evidence that Meta can deliver Privacy.
This is hilarious. Meta is embracing the mob methods more and more.
But what about wafd?
What is wafd?
Judging from the image, it’s the new subtext of Meta apparently.
Imagine the scenario where you have to bribe (disguised as a subscription) each megatech company to respect your privacy. How many times and how much will you be willing to pay for something that should be your fundamental right?
Given Meta’s history, no one should misinterpret their intentions. They should be outright banned for these egregious transgressions.
I agree. Meta should be dismantled for this and many other reasons. So should all billion dollar companies btw. Broken up and banned from having the same board, owners or any cartel-furthering practices.
@tesseract from a market perspective, it’s an okay trade to pay for having privacy, as you still use their services. I also donated this month to my instance because those servers don’t get their uptime from the Holly Spirit. But this should come with an audit to check if they are really respecting the user privacy of the paying customers. Or better, some regulatory to figure out if the market price for privacy is justified or is it too big, compared to the amount of data created in a given period of time by the user and sold to the advertisers.
Not to mention, they should overhaul their data collection practices so that you only have your data collected while using the service. That means getting away with practices such as shadow profiles or pixel tracking.
Or they should just use other methods to make money with their service altogether.
Privacy is a fundamental human right. Plain and simple.
Online, offline, doesn’t matter. No one should ever have to pay for it. Especially not to a surveillance company.
Does “pay for privacy” mean “pay to not be tracked on Facebook and Instagram” or “pay to not be tracked on the whole internet”? I can somewhat see a reasoning for the former, but the latter is absolutely inexcusable: Meta doesn’t own the internet, and it never should be allowed to.
