> making payments for non-tracking illegal

This keeps surfacing in discussions about tracking. I'm wondering how do you propose for b2c software companies to make money if they can't either properly advertise or require you to pay to opt-out? Is this just an entitled leftie thing ("Elon Musk should pay for my Instagram!") or is there a genuine though-out plan for another reasonable business model?

▲

fwlr 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I would have them make money by selling me products, rather than selling me as a product.

	▲	lII1lIlI11ll 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How is "Payed subscriptions tier without tracking" not a product? Isn't it exactly what Instagram offers in Europe?

▲

troupo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm wondering how do you propose for b2c software companies to make money if they can't either properly advertise

Advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. There's no world in which a b2c company needs my precise geo location for 12 years: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

Why the hell are people defending 24/7 monitoring at scale that would make even Stasi or Stalin pause and think "are we going too far?"? 1984 wasn't an instruction manual.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking.

Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following.

> Why the hell are people defending 24/7 monitoring at scale that would make even Stasi or Stalin pause and think "are we going too far?"? 1984 wasn't an instruction manual.

Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens while social networks definitely are. For example, Twitter won't allow me to access the images in the post you linked because I deleted my account as soon as Musk completely enshittified it and I'm doing just fine without it.

▲

troupo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following.

Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking.

The better question is: why are you so happy defending 24/7 surveillance of everything you do?

> Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens

What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tracking, or else. All based on a completely unproven assumption that tracking is required for ads to function. It's not.

> while social networks definitely are.

Indeed. Because tracking is happening only on social networks.

> For example, Twitter won't allow me to access the images

Here's a direct link. And no, this pop up wasn't on an "opt out social network". It was on a random site (can't remember now which one): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ?format=png&name=...

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking.

Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again?

> What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tracking, or else.

This is incorrect. GDPR already forbids tracking without consent, so services you didn't sign up for (the whole internet) can't legally track you. Obviously, then everything would cost you actual money not just social networks.

> Here's a direct link. And no, this pop up wasn't on an "opt out social network". It was on a random site (can't remember now which one): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ?format=png&name=...

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.

▲

troupo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again?

Somehow the only option you propose and defend is: "pay, or be tracked".

Why would I want a world where the only way not to be tracked is to pay?

Moreover, your whole premise is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim that tracking is required for advertisment and for the poor hapless b2c companies.

> This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.

You're literally saying that in your vision you are either tracked, or have to pay for access.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Some things you can self-host (email, Mastodon instance, etc), others are sponsored (HN). I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products - voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement, not "EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11".

	▲	troupo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Which is 90% of modern internet > I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products I still don't understand why you keep defending pervasive and invasive tracking of everything you do 24/7 across every site, and device, and service you visit or use even in passing. > voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement No. It has rarely worked. Especially in the face of supranational corporations, and thousands of data brokers. I mean, the top comment to the news is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49106733 about a TV that the person already buys with their money, and that still tracks and sells their data to over 200 "partners". And every TV you can buy at the store these days does that. How can I "vote with my wallet"? Or do you think fifa.com (referenced in the article under which we discuss this) needs money to run their site? FIFA has a revenue of $15 billion dollars from the World Cup alone: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/18/fifa-record... And yet: https://www.fifa.com/ads.txt > EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11 Literally no one is saying that. You are the only one pretending that invasive and pervasive tracking is the only way to serve ads or sponsor content and sites. So, tell me, why is it you are defending tracking so much?