[Yujf]

> Since the EU has suggested that Facebook cannot charge for an Ad-free tier.

That is not my understanding. They have suggested that you can not offer an Ad-free tier as the way to not have your personal data used for advertising. Fb can offer an ad free tier, but in the tier with ads you need to be able to run off personalization of the ads.

[quitit]

Yes I see that, but that's the source of the problem, because one can sign up for non-DMA services which are based on using the personal data users provide to it to service advertising-based functionality. Since even a song recommendation or touring information falls into advertising marketing.

This means the distinction between being a popular and legally running entity is when the EU makes an arbitrary decision on whether your service is now a "Core Platform Service".

I see how this makes sense for services which can be deemed as an essential service such as obtaining apps for a device, news, and internet search, but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms. Using such broad arbitrary categorisation "Music" platforms should also be included, I.E. Spotify, but we don't see that and the optics of that don't look good.

I am not pro-tracking whatsoever, I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at all, and I have a problem when protectionist legislation is decorated in political marketing for "competition" and "consumer-welfare" wrapping paper, because it leads to two things:

1. Retaliatory legislation: Foreign legislators aren't stupid, they don't buy into that marketing. One can expect the notably absent Music services to be on reciprocal legislation from the USA. Globally this has the run on effect of patch-work inconsistencies in services across the globe - i.e. we're back to protectionism.

2. Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality, but this only applies for services which the rule-maker arbitrarily chooses through specifically tailored criteria. I.E. It's a forced home-advantage to competitors who can use the data to provide new types of services. The vagueness of the laws need to be stamped out and applied to all providers equally: that would be a true consumer protection. Consumers need protection from everyone, not just big entities.

[troupo]

> when the EU makes an arbitrary decision on whether your service is now a "Core Platform Service".

It's not arbitrary.

> but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms.

These social networks are no longer "optional", and form a huge part of people's lives. Just because they are not running nuclear reactors or sewage plants doesn't absolve them of responsibilities.

> I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at al

How is "we don't want Facebook to continue pervasive and invasive tracking of everyone across the entire internet" not prosumer?

Here's what Facbook says about its tracking in the various help and settings pages: https://mastodon.nu/@dmitriid/112180885099177982

How about "For example, if you buy a pair of shoes at your local shopping centre, you might later see an ad for more shoes from that same company or a similar company." Is this really prosumer? Or is this surveillance capitalism that even very few dystopias could imagine?

> i.e. we're back to protectionism.

Yes, EU is about protectionism, but not the one you're thinking about: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...

> Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality

Laws in general are vague because it's impossible to perfectly describe and encapsulate the entirety of human endeavours in any given field.

That said, there's very little that is vague about European laws curbing the unfettered unregulated unlimited-growth-at-all-costs US-brand of capitalism. For example, here's a look inside DMA: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act Note how different it is from the bullshit that US corporations spew about it and that gullible people buy into?

[quitit]

I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts. Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement (maybe you feel like you need one?)

Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

[troupo]

> I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts.

Isn't it the exact same that you did?

> Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement

I never said it was a requirement. You could try and actually read what I wrote instead of imagining what I wrote.

> Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

Again, you could try and read that information instead of imagining what this information is.

[quitit]

I make the distinction between what are my opinions. This is a feature of comprehension that you lack and it's why I don't engage in [your] bad faith arguments since it underlines that your objective is not to present facts or opinions for discussion but rather to convey that what you think and feel as factual information - when it is not and you've provided no evidence to suggest that it is.

I'm hope this makes it clear for you. Since I don't see any value in conversations where people can't stand behind their personal ideas.