[ashelmire]

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service.

> - Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data.

This just means your service always costs money, but you can refund the full amount for allowing you to collect data.

[buboard]

Exactly. And i think it 's better UI overall: You default to no ads , but when it comes payment time, you present the ad opt-in to the users. My bet is 99.99% of users will choose free with ads. This also crosses a psychological barrier to disable their ad blocker.

[mrmuagi]

Is there a difference between offering, say, $12 monthly opt-out & $10 plan for opt-in vs flat $12 with a $2 discount to opt-in?

[seandougall]

Given how hidden opt-out settings tend to be, yes. If the user has to opt in explicitly, it’s much less likely they’ll consent unintentionally.

[cgriswald]

In practice it will be a dull button saying “$12 plan” and a bright shiny button saying “$2 DISCOUNT” with everything else in fine print.

[Bjartr]

Yep, people are generally lazy. Having something be two steps instead of one make a big difference on your overall conversion rate.

[inlined]

Probably. Loss aversion may make the user more likely want to recover $2 rather than pay $2 to upgrade to tracking-free versions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

[filoleg]

Yeah, the latter seems like it would involve more bureaucracy than the former. I don't want to sound fatalistic, but I cannot shake off the feeling that it was almost definitely intended.