Comment by maxrmk
8 days ago
The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
The impacts of the model that BigTech currently follows closely resemble those of product dumping. Effectively banning that model would mean alternative subscription based platforms would stand a much better chance of succeeding than they currently do.
a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though.
b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires?
Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.
> My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them.
You can't actually do that. None of those companies are charities.
You pay one way or another.
If you desired to inject heroin into your veins, that wouldnt mean we should decriminalize it
Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?
5 replies →
How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?
That view is overly simplistic. People find real utility in ad-supported tools and apps.
But the question is if its a net negative for society. People found real utility is leaded gasoline too, but we rightfully had to ban that
I'm ok with that. for too long the parasites have hidden behind "advertising" as a way to collect data.
Say it loud so the kids in the back can here:
- IF IT IS FREE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT -
nonsense.
You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.
Those exist! People choose to use gmail because of the scale, stability, and feature set paid for by targeted advertising.
[dead]