It’s not a choice between ‘pay or see ads’ — it’s about what kind of ads you’re subjected to

The preliminary findings of the European Union’s investigation into Meta’s “pay or consent” model confirm something I wrote about at the time: it clearly violates European law by creating a false dilemma. It creates an economic barrier that forces users to accept their personal data being collected and exploited for advertising purposes.

If Meta doesn’t modify its approach, the company could face a fine of up to 10% of its global annual turnover, with a decision expected before next March. Meta’s complaints that this would hinder its business model are entirely baseless. The company could simply opt out of hyper-targeted advertising or apply segmentation based only on generic variables unrelated to our personal data.

Hyper-targeted advertising isn’t a long-standing practice we must accept, nor is it particularly profitable for those who use it. In fact, research shows that companies using hyper-targeted advertising don’t see significant sales increases compared to those using conventional advertising methods.

What did advertising look like before companies like Google or Meta? It was straightforward: consider the ads still seen on TV or heard on radio, which remain reasonably effective. These are segmented according to general variables…