Comment by alt227
1 day ago
You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.
1 day ago
You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.
As I understand it, it is the position of several DPAs that denial of access entirely (i.e. "consent or pay") could contravene the "freely given" requirement of GDPR in most cases, though this has thus far not been tested in court.
(see e.g. https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requir... https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-s... )
> but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.
Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).
No my arguement is not that they give us free content for ads. It is that in the future it is entirely possible that they offer us free content in return for us allowing pervasive and invasive tracking.
Im pretty sure if a company said something like "Here have free netflix for life, as long as you install this browser plugin that provides us with information about your shopping habits" millions of people would bite their hand off.