[lzaaz]

>EU privacy regulators say Facebook and Instagram must not force users to agree to tracking by putting this requirement into their terms.

In the context of apps like Facebook or Instagram, which make money by tracking us to show us personalised ads, this is like saying that it is illegal for supermarkets to charge us for groceries, even if customers wanted to pay for them. What happens next? The supermarket closes, evidently. And this is a win for whom? Not the supermarket, and not the clients. Everybody loses.

[mopsi]

> this is like saying that it is illegal for supermarkets to charge us for groceries, even if customers wanted to pay for them.

More like banning the import of substandard and dangerous electronics, even if customers really want to plug their phone into a 50-cent charger from Aliexpress - because side-effects bear too high cost on the society.

[martin_a]

Just show unpersonalized ads then. That's all.

[lzaaz]

That's precisely what I'm saying. I am an adult, and if I want to pay for a service with MY data, I should be able to consent to that. I can't, so this regulation doesn't respect me and my rights.

[martin_a]

You can, it's just not the undeniable default anymore.

[alt227]

I think you misunderstood this. They are not being forced against showing personalised ads, they are being forced to give you an active choice. You are still welcome to choose to let them track you.

[lzaaz]

I think you misunderstood my answer. Using my analogy, this is like forcing the supermarket to give me a choice: pay for groceries or take them for free. This means the supermarket is forced to close because most people will take them for free.

[hedora]

So, to take the grocery store example to the extreme, now you get to choose between generic and premium oatmeal.

World ending in 3, 2, 1,...

[netrus]

It's more like forbidding Kellogg's to put toys into their cereal boxes. MAYBE they cannot sell sugary cereals to kids without, but most likely they still can. Only one way to find out :)