13 bucks to allow meta to use your the photos you upload (that creates all the content on the site) to however the fuck they want as well as collect all your data to sell things back to you better and sell your profile to other sites.
Ads pay miniscule amounts per view… I’ve heard it said the £12/month sub is about hundreds of times what they get from ad revenue per user. So they spam them everywhere… the more ads the better.
Which means people block the ads because they’re obnoxious, and they make nothing…
which in turn makes them add more ads, which makes more people block them, which makes them add more ads… and the cycle continues.
Honestly if they stuck, and I mean actually stuck to "You know what, one ad, beginning of the video, unskippable, and the rest of the video (and content below, and everything) will be ad free until you start a new video - I’d do it. I’d honestly be okay with that. But it’s just so overbearing, everywhere is meant to draw your eye to ads, so no, I’ll do everything I can to get around them.
Or if they went back to their old advertisement model, remember when you used to get in line advertisements that played at the bottom of the video. I remember those they weren’t intrusive to the video content and you still saw them. It wasn’t obnoxious as hell and I would bd ok with that
Depends on the ad and how much you use the premium…
I’ve watched so much they would’ve absolutely made more money showing me ads (based on my best guess for how much margin they should make on ads, which I think I can estimate pretty well, vs premium as I know less about costs etc. there) but I guess it’s not the case for everyone
there is youtube++, haven’t tried it because i have an android, but it should have a lot of the features of vanced. And with iOS16 finally (kind of) allowing third party apps, it’s not even that hard to install
It’s not as clear cut as either of us thinks… To my surprise the Dutch seem to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/
Nobody is forcing anyone, you are free to not use the service at any time.
What they’re doing is turning it into an explicitly paid sevice, and letting you choose whether you’d rather pay in money, or in personal data.
In an ideal world, everyone would have the option to decide getting their personal data gathered, or not, in exchange for some money/crypto, with competing data gatherers offering different packages and rewards, and they could use it to subscribe to whatever services they wished.
It’s not as clear cut as either of us thinks… To my surprise the Dutch seem to agree with you. But case law is being made as we speak consent.guide/cookie-or-pay-walls/
As far as my interpretation of the law goes… You can either block your website to all non paying visitors OR you also allow non paying visitors but you are not allowed to blackmail the free visitors to give up their privacy. Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. And that’s something the EU definitely doesn’t want to happen (net neutrality). I think the Dutch verdicts will be overruled by Europe one of these days… Or years :)
IANAL, but… I don’t think the law says that? My understanding is that the points are not related to each other:
You need prior explicit consent in order to gather non-essential tracking data
You can charge any amount for any functionality
That would mean all these combinations would be allowed:
Free, no tracking and no consent
Free, prior consent for tracking
Paid, no tracking and no consent
Paid, prior consent for tracking
If a site decides to only implement numbers 2 and 3… there wouldn’t be any conflict.
Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. And that’s something the EU definitely doesn’t want to happen (net neutrality)
Net neutrality doesn’t apply to services, only to carriers, who are considered more like utilities, but still aren’t required to offer a “free” tier. Services don’t need to offer an option accessible to everyone at all, they can specify whatever requirements they want (with only a few exceptions related to discrimination).
Large social media platforms… is where current legislative efforts are in. Above a certain number of users, they’re getting defined more as utilities, and subject to more requirements, but still no “free” tier.
The internet divide exists already: some households can afford 1Gbps unmetered symmetric fiber with Netflix, HBO and Disney+ and a few mobile lines with unlimited calls and 50GB/month data for 100€/month… while others can barely affford a prepaid 100MB/month mobile connection for 1€/month… but it’s fine as long as it’s a divide based on service pricing, not carrier traffic discrimination.
Sorry for the downvote, especially seen that case law hasn’t been settled yet nor if your, or my, reasoning is the correct one. I just hate your arguments though it looks like you work as a part-time Dutch judge :))
Don’t be sorry, just don’t use downvotes to express your opinion… use your words.
If you don’t like my arguments, go ahead and propose others.
For starters, I see you referring to “case law”, which sounds like a US thing. In the EU, case decisions generally don’t shape the law, except Supreme Court decisions, and even then lawmakers can inform or reform those decisions. It’s usually more accurate to define a logical reasoning from the bare law, rather than expect decisions in one case to influence others.
I’m not an English native speaker nor a Lawyer. I base it on how I understood the law through articles in the years since it was introduced. We can go back and forth, but there’s nothing I can add that isn’t in the article I also linked in the replies. Thanks :)
Very likely, but the final verdict is still out on that one, as far as I know. There are several other services and sites that offer similar opt-out of tracking and ads for money schemes (albeit not as ludicrously expensive).
I believe that’s both against the spirit and any reasonable interpretation of the law, but I don’t think it has been fully tested in court.
But they are not even offering to stop tracking me. They only offer add free experience and force targeted ads. I’d be ok with regular ads but not the targeted ads
Yeah, this might be it. For anyone not aware, every browser on iOS is just safari with a different skin and some plugins to work with whatever ecosystem you actually are trying to use.
They have different browsers with limitations but I don’t know about not proper. It is possible to build perfectly decent web apps but many times they choose not to or it’s too much trouble
It is possible to build perfectly decent web apps but many times they choose not to or it’s too much trouble
On iOS, they quite literally can’t in some aspects. They’re restricted to using the supplied WebKit Apple enforces. On Android you can use the Blink Web View (Chromium) or Gecko Web View (Firefox). Both of which can be bundled in the app, or you can use the system version.
They have different browsers with limitations but I don’t know about not proper.
Every single iOS “browser” is WebKit. AKA Safari. Due to Apple’s plug-in system being proprietary, it’s difficult to extend. Third party browsers typically use JavaScript injections which slow down the browsing experience. The supplied WebKit is also watered down and updated on a slower cycle. Apple intentionally makes their browser better.
You’re not actually using Microsoft Edge. You’re using Safari and it’s being identified as such by the UA string. Due to Safari being in last place for web standards feature support, it’s not surprising you’re coming across the issue.
iOS only allows PWAs in Safari, and Safari lacks a lot of features for PWAs - firt.dev/notes/pwa-ios/ is a pretty good resource for figuring out what they do and don’t support.
Outside of PWAs, Safari is a pain to develop for. Unlike both Firefox and Chromium browsers, its “dev tools” are a bit of a mess and don’t support simply adding extensions like React Dev Tools to augment them. To use such an extension you have to run it as an independent application and connect to Safari, and IME doing this it frequently fails to actually connect properly and didn’t provide a comparable workflow.
When I was working on an app that only needed to support Safari, I ended up just using those extensions in Chrome or Firefox rather than trying to build it in Safari.
And this is my experience building on a Mac. For anyone developing on a Windows or Linux device, it’s not like they can just install Safari locally to confirm that everything works. So if something doesn’t work in Safari, it’s probably not gonna get caught by the developer.
mildlyinfuriating
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.