Facebook agrees to change "pay or consent" model after talks with European Commission.
See full article...
See full article...
Meta offers EU users ad-light option in push to end investigation
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This appears to be a compromise where Meta gets almost everything they want in the form of premium priced personalized ads under the guise of fewer ads (advertisers will pay more for these ads) in exchange for no fines and limited oversight. On the other hand, Meta's users will suffer. The only way to win this game is to not use any of Meta's services.
Upvote
162
(163
/
-1)
I'm confused?
Are they saying the options are:
1. They track my data and I get personalised ads; or
2. They don't track my data and I don't get personalised ads?
Why on earth would anyone chose option 1? Are Facebook under the impression that people actually prefer more targeted ads?
Are they saying the options are:
1. They track my data and I get personalised ads; or
2. They don't track my data and I don't get personalised ads?
Why on earth would anyone chose option 1? Are Facebook under the impression that people actually prefer more targeted ads?
Upvote
101
(102
/
-1)
I wonder if the article in FT article linked to the commission's statement. Here it is, anyway:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_2966
Sounds like a win for consumers, because it potentially sets a limit on the amount of data-sharing users have to accept before paying to access an otherwise ad-supported service. However, the wording could allow Meta to collect the full stack of information on users on ad-lite, which it could use for other purposes like market research, but simply show that user some less targeted advertising. We'll have to see what the policy is in reality and, of course, we should expect Meta to test the limits of this agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_2966
Sounds like a win for consumers, because it potentially sets a limit on the amount of data-sharing users have to accept before paying to access an otherwise ad-supported service. However, the wording could allow Meta to collect the full stack of information on users on ad-lite, which it could use for other purposes like market research, but simply show that user some less targeted advertising. We'll have to see what the policy is in reality and, of course, we should expect Meta to test the limits of this agreement.
Upvote
33
(34
/
-1)
Devil might be in the details on this one.
At the same time, other jurisdictions should take note: the EU called Facebook's "OK then I guess we're leaving the EU" bluff and brought them to the table to acknowledge and discuss legitimate consumer rights and public interest concerns like an adult.
At the same time, other jurisdictions should take note: the EU called Facebook's "OK then I guess we're leaving the EU" bluff and brought them to the table to acknowledge and discuss legitimate consumer rights and public interest concerns like an adult.
Upvote
83
(85
/
-2)
having operated many websites, most ppl click consent cause they don't care, don't understand or can't bother reading what they agree to.
as a European i'm sick of the commission bending over backwards to please meta et al, apply the fucking law ffs.
Upvote
126
(130
/
-4)
That's what the EU is saying, and the 'why would anybody pick 1?' problem is kinda Meta's entire point.
Meta's current options are :
1. They track your data and you get personalised ads; or
2. They don't track your data and you pay them monthly
The commission says this is illegal, even though it's actually a pretty common model now in the EU. But it's ok - it's only illegal for Meta because of the DMA. EU media firms can continue to adopt it.
The commission is saying that meta is now offering a choice between
1. consenting to share all your data and seeing fully personalised advertising,
2. Opting to share less personal data for an experience with more limited personalised advertising.
Meta will present these new options to users in the EU in January 2026.
So why would anybody pick 1? I'm guessing there will be a LOT of ads if you select 2. And perhaps a lot of really bad adverts that you would rather never see and will never be able to unsee? Clearly meta doesn't want you selecting option 2.
Why would 'less' data be legal if you still have to enable it? Magic 8 ball says outlook unclear. Probably because the commission's interpretation of the DMA is that the DMA means whatever the commission wants it to mean on any particular day.
Upvote
-4
(25
/
-29)
Upvote
159
(159
/
0)
This is nonsense, the Commission cannot weaken GDPR anyway and our privacy laws have not been weakened whatsoever.
What the EU is developing in terms of age verification is a framework that allows age verification without violating privacy. You can check, btw, the application is open source and open development which you can find here: https://ageverification.dev/
Upvote
48
(57
/
-9)
Yes, believe it or not. I have in real life met a cohort of tech workers who seriously, genuinely claim to desire targeted ads ("I want to see ads that meet my needs. Why would anyone want to see irrelevant ads?"). Of course, they may just have drunken too much of their employers' kool-aid...
Edit: If you're wondering, they also claim that the reason that ad blockers exist is because people see too many irrelevant, untargeted ads. If you can create precise enough ad targeting/personalization, then people will happily accept ads in their content and there will be no more need for blockers.
Last edited:
Upvote
94
(95
/
-1)
This. The world got along JUST FINE before Facebook. The world will get along JUST FINE without it. I bailed on Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica clusterfuck of lies was exposed, and you know what?
Life is MUCH better without it. The contrived drama and other bullshit were bad enough. I didn't need the data-mining on top of it. Today, I have an add-on that explicitly blocks all Facebook content (Instagram, anything Meta, Facebook, etc.) so I just don't see it. And while for most things the saying isn't true, but when it comes to the drama and contrived bullshit on all of the ad-driven social media, ignorance is truly bliss, because you're missing NOTHING AT ALL.
FOMO isn't there if you're not missing anything.
IMHO, open social media like Facebook that amplify discussions and deliver content without asking for it are the most inhumane weapon of mass destruction humanity ever created. The others just kill you. Their malignant form of social media makes you suffer endlessly. And all you need to do to stop that suffering is stop inflicting it on yourself, delete your accounts and block their e-mails.
The silence is bliss...
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
“Personalized ads are vital for Europe’s economy.”
Brilliant, I needed that laugh today
Brilliant, I needed that laugh today
Upvote
106
(106
/
0)
Are personalized ads vital to the EU economy? I would argue Meta is a net loss for the EU. Meta didn't comply with GDPR, uses controversial EU tax avoidance schemes, and at least 10% of Facebook ad units are scams, according to Meta's own documents. So the product and company seem to actually be a scammy, often illegal and immoral drag on the economy. All the euros spent on scam ads are less euros that can be spent on valid, actually European businesses.
On a corporate level, the majority of major Meta stockholders are US hedge funds, index funds and the like, with only Norges Bank in Norway holding a big position. So all the profits from Meta just funnel back into US hands. At the same time, Facebook has successfully prevented any European social networks from gaining traction leaving lonely Mastadon as the biggest European social network.
If I had a lot of time or an analyst job I bet I could make the case that Europe's economy would be healthier without Meta's personalized ads, or any Meta presence at all.
Upvote
90
(90
/
0)
I was referring to digital omnibus https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/...omises-red-tape-cuts-guts-gdpr-privacy-rights
Age verification we will see how it will be implemented. Like with digital Euro. The idea started well off but soon got lobbied into the ground. So chances of anonymous age-verification is nearly zero but let's hope I'm wrong there.
Upvote
-14
(4
/
-18)
I am baffled why Meta is acting now since they knew they were in scope for its provisions since 2022. Why create the extra headaches and wait for an investigation rather than mitigate your risk earlier on?
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
There are people who do. I've talked to them. It makes no sense to me, but there are people who prefer that the ads they see be relevant to them.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Because then Meta can make 3 years of extra profit while its lawyers drag out the case in the courts. If the fine isn't high enough to claw back all of the relevant profits, then it's just a cost of doing business.
Upvote
50
(50
/
0)
As a European citizen who does not use Meta products:
Yes, I'm missing out on a lot of things. WhatsApp is the standard tool of communication for my hobby courses, between neighbours, for sport clubs, etc You miss things because they either posted it on Facebook or in the WhatsApp group. They talk about things they assume you also saw on Facebook.
I understand that products are in general not free, so in theory, I would be willing to pay for access if this means that my data would not be exploited, be treated confidentially, not be abused to influence elections, etc
The thing is: even if Meta would offer a paying service, their past actions show that they will not honor their conditions. They will claim 'no tracking', 'no scraping', 'no unauthorized use', but they will do it anyway. There is no way to trust them, and if one ever finds out, no way to get justice.
I would love to pay to have access, but I cannot trust them anymore. I would just be the idiot that is screwed over twice: once by paying, once by being tracked.
Yes, I'm missing out on a lot of things. WhatsApp is the standard tool of communication for my hobby courses, between neighbours, for sport clubs, etc You miss things because they either posted it on Facebook or in the WhatsApp group. They talk about things they assume you also saw on Facebook.
I understand that products are in general not free, so in theory, I would be willing to pay for access if this means that my data would not be exploited, be treated confidentially, not be abused to influence elections, etc
The thing is: even if Meta would offer a paying service, their past actions show that they will not honor their conditions. They will claim 'no tracking', 'no scraping', 'no unauthorized use', but they will do it anyway. There is no way to trust them, and if one ever finds out, no way to get justice.
I would love to pay to have access, but I cannot trust them anymore. I would just be the idiot that is screwed over twice: once by paying, once by being tracked.
Upvote
65
(65
/
0)
The potential fines under the DMA can be as much as 10% of your global revenues for an initial violation and up to 20% of your global revenues for subsequent violations.
There's no way 3 years of profit (in the EU) is worth potentially 10%-20% of your global revenues.
Last edited:
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
The Digital Markets Act requires explicit opt- in for a data collection.
If a user's only choices are to opt in ("Why would I do that ?!) or be required to sign up for a paid subscription, then FB would be faced with a not-insignificant number of users closing their accounts altogether, and the Z-man wants to avoid that at all costs.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
No, what the EU is doing is called "regulating". What the US is doing is called "not regulating".
Upvote
76
(78
/
-2)
To me thats the true genius part of the DMA, the ability to impose fines that actually hurt and would influence decisions.
Upvote
32
(33
/
-1)
But will they actually pay out anywhere near that much? As we see in this very article, it looks like Meta is negotiating a solution that allows it to keep most of the profits of the last three years.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
That's a pretty big bet to put potentially 16.4 billion dollars (10% of Meta's gloabl revenues) on the line for.
And an even bigger bet that subsequent violations would potentially trigger $33 billion dollar finea (20% of global revenues).
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Winning Comment. Emphasis mine.
Delete: Facebook, Insta, and WhatsApp (unless you literally have no other secure way of communicating with some important person in your life). Amazing anyone still needs to repeat this at this stage of the game. Like, what do these assholes have to do for some people to not trust them any longer -- break into their house and kill their dog? FFS.
Just like always, It's a shit company preying on kids and helping to end any privacy that remains in your life; protect yourself. You don't need their dog-shit apps to do things like keep in touch with relatives, share pictures, or even run a small business (the ole "what would I do without the customers I bring in with my Facebook coupons?" thing - as if no small businesses ever thrived before or without the invention of Facebook coupons).
Everyone needs to move... the fuck... on from these literal scumbags, before they do further (and worse) damange to our society. Bonus reason: piling on the LLM hype machine bandwagon to assist in completely curb-stomping any positive climate efforts people are making.
Last edited:
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
I switched back to Firefox (after years on Chrome) when Chrome disabled my ad blockers.
I never visit FB with my adblock off, so I guess I've been using FB lite all this time anyway
I never visit FB with my adblock off, so I guess I've been using FB lite all this time anyway
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
I was about to comment on this. I read the statement as "Personalized ads are vital for Meta's bottom line."
If they're so vital, maybe that's why the economy thrived in the 1960's and the 1970's. When there were only rudimentary (if any) ways to track ads...
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Well, you have to either agree the terms or agree to pay if you want to be able to "close" your account. And your account is not closed, it's merely deactivated until you show up again (and the tracking is still in place, because you agreed to it before closing your not-that-closed account).
From an EU citizen POV, the best is to never accept anything, and never visit Facebook again. If you happen to visit it by error, it must again show you the dialogue where you must chose your own defeat, and that will help you to quit again.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
"Cigarette sales are vital for Europe's economy."
"Unregulated gambling is vital for Europe's economy."
"Methamphetamine sales are vital for Europe's economy."
"Hidden cameras in our users bedrooms are vital for Europe's economy."
"Replacing our staff with actual slaves is vital for Europe's economy."
"Letting Meta do what ever the f we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want is vital for Europe's economy."
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
That's great, and I am (seriously!) glad it works for you.
Meta/Facebook is one of my compromise areas, and I don't like that. But I'm still active on Facebook, for a couple reasons that mostly boil down to community.
My town has an active FB group to discuss everything from lost pets to local businesses to utility outages. Yes, there were other ways to do that in pre-online days, but many of them don't exist anymore. And those that still do aren't as effective.
I have a close alumni group from school, that also has a private FB group. These are people I like, but now live nowhere near. It's a social group I want to stay engaged with, which is... unusual, for me. We periodically talk about shifting to another platform, but Bluesky has no structure for closed groups, and neither does anything else anyone's suggested.
I am also on Bluesky, and I find the firehose of ads and "we thought you might like this! even though you never asked for it!!" posts on FB all the more jarring. But FB has made itself something of a monopoly for many online communities, especially those that don't have their own dedicated space (like the Ars forums).
And yes, of course non-virtual communities exist in real life. That's great, but it doesn't work for friends who live far away.
Upvote
14
(17
/
-3)
Poverty, food insecurity, no healthcare, homeless people, substance abuse, high Veterans suicide rates and all.
These things can all be solved by giving billionaires more money.
These things can all be solved by giving billionaires more money.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I admin for a group that uses groups.io for plain old email group chats. It's like going back in time 20 years which means there's no apps and no bullshit. It also means people are much less likely to share rage bait and ai slop to the group since they'd have to copy/paste it into an email vs clicking the share to group button in a social media app.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Because in 2022 nobody thought anybody would be mad enough to give Trump a second chance, and that therefore the EU wouldn't be so worried.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
To be fair, it isn't binary. The current US administration is decidedly way over into the unholy quadrant of thumb-on-the-scale winner/loser picking crossed with laissez-faire non-benign neglect, wheres the EU does lean a bit too far (IMHO) into nanny-state territory.
Upvote
-14
(3
/
-17)