Some websites have started introducing paywalls which can be lifted with data rather than cash.
It is an increasingly common message from websites: browse for free - if you allow us to track your data and target you with personalised ads - if you don't, hand over some cash.
The model is known as "consent or pay" and, while it may be becoming increasingly common, questions remain over whether it is ethical or even legal.
The UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has launched a consultation on the practice - it will report its findings later this year.
"In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models that involve 'consent or pay,'" the ICO says on its website.
I’d have no problem paying for privacy respecting access to websites that I used frequently except that I don’t trust them to keep their end of the deal.
I like the position held by NOYB: Providers of websites that show either a restricted ad-supported version or an unrestricted subscription-based version of the site should be required to offer a third option that is restricted and ad-free for a fee that equals the market value of the information sold to advertisers (usually a few cents per month and per user).
We could go back to saying fuck them no service for you.
God forbid somebody pay for these services. Meanwhile the fuck big technology folks will screech at Google for running YouTube as a loss leader screaming anti trust.
The question remains: Why should someone pay the cost of providing you a service or hosting a website, if you won't pay with money, your data, or by seeing ads?
Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean no more search engines, video or image hosting sites, or actually any websites that aren't tied to a paid service, financed by taxes or donations, or provided by hobbyists as a pastime.