[kekumu]

> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice.

It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.

[hackerman12345]

Not allowing businesses to fire customers who don't want to share anything sounds like a massive problem for companies who's revenue model depends on user info. Think of all the people who don't want to share anything but still aren't willing to type in CC info for facebook, are they entitled to free facebook use on the companies' dime?

[manigandham]

> doesn't count as a real choice.

Why not?

[kekumu]

Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely.

The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?

[spookthesunset]

> Because consent must be "freely given"

But you do have a choice. Don't use the site if you don't consent to its rules. Pretty straightforward choice.

[takeda]

Yes same as you have a choice to live without computers and electricity.

[manigandham]

Definitely not the same.

[kekumu]

> Pretty straightforward choice.

It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.

[JBSay]

The rest of what you wrote is silly. Social media websites are not charities. They don't have to provide you with a service if you are not willing to compensate them with your data.

[kekumu]

Personal data is not the only form of compensation, and GDPR is a direct response to the situation that attitude has created.

Nobody is suggesting companies provide free services. We're saying that personal data is more than commodity, and we should be looking to more ethical business models. And we won't be sad to lose companies that can't adapt.

edit: And I don't think my point was silly, but I'm also not really libertarian. So I don't think it's acceptable for companies to abuse their dominant position to make things worse for society at large.

[manigandham]

You're making a philosophical argument about what is a "real choice", precisely the problem with the "based-on-principle" GDPR. All this will do is create a big mess if/when this gets into real litigation.