bleistift2

Are there any rights you think should supersede contracts? If so, how do you draw the line between rights that do and don’t?

(I’ll answer your question in a comment side-chain, just because you asked.)

Germans have the right to continued wage payments if they need to take care of family members (§616 BGB). However, that right can be voided in the employment contract.

(§618 BGB) essentially states that the work environment must be reasonably safe. This cannot be voided by contract, as is codified in (§619 BGB).

These are just instances. I do not know any general rules for the precedence of contracts over the law or vice versa.

Are there any rights you think should supersede contracts?

That is beside the point I’m making. Facebook acknowledges the right to privacy by giving you the choice to pay for the service rather than giving up your data. In my view, this should be completely acceptable by the GDPR. No-one is forcing you to sign up to facebook, so you do have a completely free choice to (1) either not give up your data and not use facebook; or (2) not give up your data and pay for the service; or (3) give up your data and pay for the service that way.

Cars are bad in general, and the minerals used in cars (batteries, in general) are limited and sourced awfully. But what does that have to do with greenhouse gas emissions?

You have the right to not own a car. But if you do, you must have insurance for it (in Germany, at least). You cannot hide behind GDPR and say “I have a right to my data. I must not be asked to give it to any insurer without my consent.” You also need to have a driver’s license with your name and photo on it. GDPR doesn’t protect you there, either.

The bottom line is: Using a product may come with responsibilities or other concessions. You have the right to not use the product if the concessions aren’t worth it to you. You do not have the right to any product if you refuse the obligations that come with it.

This is, of course, my own opinion based on my understanding of how the world should work.

If I understand you correctly, you’re making the same argument as !snooggums@midwest.social above, so I’ll copy answer to them here:

That is a completely different issue. On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.

On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”

Suppose non-targeted ads didn’t generate enough revenue. Would it then be legitimate to require facebook to provide their service at a loss?

This is lemmy. Any valid argument is shat out by the devil himself if it might be construed to support the perceived “strong one” in a relationship.

That is a completely different issue. On the one hand, meta does collect data on people who do not have an account. [Edit: Source: https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/privacy/how-facebook-tracks-you-even-when-youre-not-on-facebook-a7977954071/] This is simply illegal, since that collection is neither necessary nor consented to. The EU should finally put a stop to that.

On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”

This is giving so many Oliver Twist vibes that you’d think it’s a parody.

Usually these stories go like “Let’s give the child workers lunch breaks” and you find the mandatory “There should be no child labor in the first place” in the comments, next to a link to the orphan-crushing machine.

This feels like a meta-joke. Instead of adding a little good to something horrible, they add appalling to horrible. I actually checked if this was the onion posting or if the post is from April 1st, but no; it’s just the United States. XD Good luck to all of you.

The do charge €10/mo like every other company does, and they add the possibility to not pay and rather see targeted advertisement. How is that worse?

You’re framing this as if a facebook account were mandatory. If you can’t afford $10 per month, don’t use facebook. I don’t.

I’m all for GDPR and really enjoy its protections, but I don’t understand this one. If facebook says they need €10/mo to provide their services and gives us the choice to either pay that or to pay with targeted ads, then how does that infringe upon our data [Edit: ~~integrity~~ autonomy]? The service seems to be worth something, so the EU cannot expect facebook to just give it out for less, can they? What’s the basis for this?