[ewretgg]

> GDPR could have safeguarded data by demanding more transparency

That would be a toothless regulation. It would just cause businesses to add more crap to their privacy policies, which nobody reads anyway, and doesn't impact user behavior.

> It's not obvious why they are requiring apps to provide the same service for free 'without detriment'

So that users can opt-out of having unnecessary data collected. You should only be collecting the data needed to run the service. If your business collapses when users opt-out, your business model was nothing but data harvesting to begin with, and probably doesn't deserve to exist.

> That destroys a number of business models

A number of exploitative business models that harm society and democracy. Works for me!

> Why not just allow they give an option to not give their data if they are willing to pay?

You can do that now. Stop collecting data that isn't necessary to run your service, and charge people money.

[taysic]

If they were smart about how transparent a business needed to be, I don't think it would be toothless at all. It would have given users more information about what is happening behind the scenes and allowed them to make their own decisions.

> So that users can opt-out of having unnecessary data collected. You should only be collecting the data needed to run the service. If your business collapses when users opt-out, your business model was nothing but data harvesting to begin with, and probably doesn't deserve to exist.

This is a really rosy view of things. The reality is that there are tons of apps / games / sites that people use and enjoy but would not pay for. And there are people who could not otherwise afford to pay for them but are able to enjoy them because personalized ads can be used as a form of payment. I would argue most of these things make the world a better place not a worse place. And that people should be able to choose how they want to pay for those services.

[ewretgg]

I don't agree, but at least I understand where you're coming from. Here is the stasis of our dispute:

> I would argue most of these things make the world a better place not a worse place. And that people should be able to choose how they want to pay for those services.

I'm not convinced any of the apps we pay for in data really improve our lives. The price we pay in control over our identity and our information usually outweighs the benefits. And in some cases, like in many distracting social apps or pay-to-win games, there is no benefit. The app is just designed to addict us, keep us occupied, and make our lives worse.

Furthermore, I don't think "allowing users to decide for themselves" is going to make a difference. That's like allowing poison in food, because everyone can scan the ingredients on the label for known poisons. It's unreasonable to expect the average person to do due diligence on every service they use online.

[orangecat]

I'm not convinced any of the apps we pay for in data really improve our lives. The price we pay in control over our identity and our information usually outweighs the benefits.

Hundreds of millions of Google and Facebook users disagree. If you ask people what Google does with the data they collect, a large percentage both incorrectly believe that they directly sell it to advertisers (rather than just using it for ad targeting) and don't have a problem with that.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I am saying that you aren't so clearly right that your preferences should be forcibly imposed on everyone.

[guitarbill]

That's fine, the problem is there was no choice before. OK, Google Analytics is somewhat easier to block, but e.g. Facebook with their shadow profiles? How do you block that? Is it feasible to expect teenagers to not use FB/Snapchat/Instagram when all their friends are just to protect their privacy?

[ewretgg]

If the benefit users got was that great, I think people would pay for these services, if forced to.