[krystalgamer]

exactly, but it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay.

if we assume there’s a directional graph with edges labeled as “visited”. what linkedin is offering is to traverse it backwards for a fee.

what they’re demanding is ludicrous. pure entitlement that would have horrible ramifications for all social media platforms.

should a gdpr export include who has unliked/unreposted your posts too? it definitely pertains to you.

[throw_a_grenade]

> it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay

Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.

[scronkfinkle]

"Pertains" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and you're using it wrong. The data about who viewed your profile pertains to you from the moment the visit happens. That's what that word means, so your first statement is false.

The other important detail is that LinkedIn already has processed this data that definitely pertains to you, whether you paid for it or not, and are trying to sell it to you. In fact, to quote the article, LinkedIn's argument for not giving it to the user is "on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence". LinkedIn isn't withholding viewer data to protect viewer privacy. We know this because they sell it. If the viewer's privacy interest were so compelling that it overrides your Article 15 right (which is what Noyb is referring to), it would also be compelling enough to prevent LinkedIn from selling that same data to Premium subscribers.

The argument being made for this specific feature (not the ones you added) is that you can't simultaneously claim the data is too privacy-sensitive to disclose under GDPR and then sell it as a product feature

[krystalgamer]

> The argument being made for this specific feature

great display of intellectual honesty here.