this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
913 points (98.6% liked)

memes

18061 readers
2599 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

GDPR wasn't designed to prevent this. It's a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.

Everything doesn't have to be free on the Internet

Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren't clear enough as to the consumer's rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.

When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:

When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether [...] the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.

to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.