This BBC article makes my head hurt:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd3mey1ej2o

- The main news is about Meta's consent or pay model makes users "choose between paying for a monthly subscription or letting Meta *combine data it has collected on Facebook and Instagram*", and how EU ruled this non-compliant with #DMA.
- It then links to another article about a model where where you can pay for *ad-free* Facebook. Ad-free is not the same as combining data from different platforms!
- There is no link to the EU source, but we get a full section about Meta's plans with AI, that has *nothing* to do with the original topic.
- In the middle of this mess we get a totally out of context paragraph explaining what Meta is?!

Was this all written by an LLM?

Does anyone happen to know what this regulation is actually about?

#EU #DMA #Meta #privacy #journalism

@buherator I’m finding the bbc articles are skewing to the right lately.. softening topics that should be clear-cut, or “whatabouting” things like this

@Cali Well the title is parroting Meta's message in the first place, so I guess that's a fair assessment, but I'm still curious about what this decision is really about...

@buherator Why is each sentence a separate paragraph?

The Digital Markets Act gives users in the EU more freedom of choice when using software and services and ensures fairer competition for business within the EU [1](https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en)

Meta violates Article 5(2)(b) of the DMA [2](https://www.taylorwessing.com/de/insights-and-events/insights/2025/04/meta-fined-200-million-euro-by-eu-under-digital-markets-act). It states that gatekeepers such as Meta may not combine personal data from their various platforms without freely given consent [3](https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_Article_5.html). 1/2

The payment model restricts users' freedom of choice. The choice exists, but it is not completely free due to the unequal hurdles (requires payment vs free of charge) [2]. 2/2

@TuxOnBike thanks, so like 85% of the article is unrelated to the decision in question, right?

@buherator Yeah, I agree. At least the whole AI stuff is a completely different deal.

I also think it is strange that the title of the article only refers to a single opinion stated in one single sentence, without any justification or explanation to support that opinion.

@buherator

Well... it's citing a lot of legal context and is therefore quite complex. But AFAIC it lays it out in a clear way.

@gsymon don't confuse incoherency with complexity

@buherator

Well, I had no trouble understanding it. Perhaps I'm a weirdo and it was written by another weirdo?

@gsymon incoherency doesn't mean the piece is not understandable, it means the pieces don't connect logically. As I explained above, the current EU decision has very little to do with Meta's AI strategy, or the ad-free model.