[kspacewalk2]

That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible. The result will be fewer free services (to put it differently, fewer services and fewer choices). If you don't pay for stuff with your data, you can't have it for free. Are we sure we want to use government regulations to impose this on consumers of services, from the top down? Instead of, say, letting them decide?

(Yes, of course it's an industry talking point. The best kind - one that's true and valid, and so far not effectively refuted).

[lolinder]

A business model does not have a right to exist just because individuals would choose to patronize it if legal. There are plenty of predatory business models that capitalize on market failures. "Free" definitely appears to be one of those business models.

[kspacewalk2]

To clarify, you are saying we should legislate away the right of a consumer to consent to a service whereby, in lieu of payment, the consumer is delivered targeted advertisement based on the data generated by their use of the service?

If this phrasing is incorrect, please correct it. It's just really helpful to be clear and precise in such discussions, because people sometimes hide the essence of their argument behind ambiguous verbiage.

[shuntress]

To clarify, the sentiment seems to be that we should legislate the requirement that a consumer must explicitly consent to any service whereby, in lieu of payment, the consumer is delivered targeted advertisement based on the data generated by their use of the service rather than take the consumer use of the service as implicit consent.

[lolinder]

I'm not proposing legislation outlawing any particular business model. If someone can make "free" work while respecting customer data ownership, more power to them.

What I am saying that customer data should legally belong to the customer, and if that makes some business models infeasible, so be it.

[hansvm]

Given the context of GDPR data portability, it seems more likely that they're saying that businesses shouldn't have a right to hold data hostage as a method of lock-in, especially in lieu of providing a service people like enough to voluntarily stick with. The "targeted advertising as payment" thing is a separate can of worms that they may or may not care about.

[matheusmoreira]

> That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible.

So be it.

> If you don't pay for stuff with your data, you can't have it for free.

Okay. Charge us.

> Are we sure we want to use government regulations to impose this on consumers of services, from the top down?

Yes.

[arrosenberg]

Free really means subsidized in this case. Those business models are anticompetitive, so it’s pretty easy to justify eliminating them.

[jensus]

From a subjective view I do not believe we want any business model that survives on utilising your data beyond the core of the product to exist e.g. I would think we want anyone to sell your data to add companies.

I do not believe there is a need for so much free stuff in general. But it should never be a situation where you have to pay for your data to be safe.

[kspacewalk2]

Those are your beliefs/values. I mostly share them. But is it right to impose them legislatively on everyone?

[jensus]

what are legislates if not the opinion of the current society (and for some countries the opinion of corporations)?

As in yes, with my current understanding of personal data, I do believe we should have laws safeguarding them - even at the risk of business'.

[baq]

> That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible.

That’s the point.

[JohnWhigham]

Good riddance to bad trash. It's a shitty business model to begin with.

[M2Ys4U]

>That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible.

Good.