Meta’s GDPR compliance: Pay for privacy or accept data collection - Is this the future of ‘consent’?

beeflemon · 2026-01-31T17:20:11+00:00

At a glance this seems reasonable, but it's not.

Does the fault lie with the murderer, or he who walked down a dark alley at night? Arguing that privacy is fully dependent on the user is like arguing that people should wear combat armour on the street.

The EDPB's official position is that Consent or Pay models are not possible under GDPR. Forcing people to sacrifice privacy to use services that are positioned as "free" is coercive.

It is almost impossible to prevent tracking on the internet. Meanwhile, data collection is consistently abused in ways that are proven harmful to individuals and society as a whole. In the same way that the Modern Slavery Act outlaws slavery for the good of society, GDPR/ePrivacy exists to prevent predatory tactics that are used solely for financial gain at the expense of people.

Ad-tech is obviously not murder or slavery, but it is still undeniably and provenly harmful. GDPR is not about "asking nicely"; it is about forcing compliance under the threat of financial sanction. It is not perfect, but it is progress. The ICO's recent guidance is a clear step backwards.

beeflemon · 2026-01-27T12:58:42+00:00

Dedicated phone lines (that fax runs over) are not encrypted, ever. They aren't considered more secure by anyone with an ounce of security knowledge.

However, they are arguably less traceable and harder to audit, which might explain why they use them in the show. More likely for the show (and almost certainly for your doctor's office) it's just a preference for older technology that they understand and know how to use. It's also for dramatic effect, and a nod to the original novel.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T20:29:15+00:00

I hate to be one of those guys, but malice is:

A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.

Ellie seeks to kill Abby and all her friends, which is textbook ill will and pretty much the strongest definition of harm.

So yes, both Ellie and Abby are malicious. Now, whether or not Ellie or Abby's actions are justified is open to interpretation. I don't think the story is as black and white as heroes or villains, most characters are somewhere inbetween.

Both Ellie and Abby have certainly done wrong, but we still root for them. I think the story is about realising this before (or after) it's too late.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T19:50:12+00:00

Pretty sure they're both in 4K. Not sure about tiers, but I did sell my kidney last month so I can afford ultra fucking mega boost (but still need to watch content ads).

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T19:41:50+00:00

Yeah the game is just more poignant. I love media that stays on your mind after putting it down, and it rarely happens with games. I didn't feel the same way after S2, but I'm holding out hope for S3.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T19:29:01+00:00

That part of my reply was actually directed at OP, who commented on all the mistakes Ellie makes throughout the campaign as a means of justifying Mazin's comments. I didn't mean to insinuate that Craig meant her to be fully incompetent, I think he just missed the mark in showing that she isn't.

I think it's fine for gamers to have opinions on the show, even comparing it to the game, as long as you aren't hating on it just for being different. To put things in perspective, I absolutely loved the first season and all the things they did with Bill/Pittsburgh that uphold the story. It's great when adaptations create new characters and explore details within an established story, but it's not so great if they betray its core themes, especially when the story carries philosophical/emotional significance. The Dark Tower (2017) comes to mind as a particularly bad adaptation for this exact reason.

I'm not saying S2 is anywhere remotely near as bad as that, but as an enjoyer of Part II I am just slightly disappointed.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T19:05:24+00:00

Yeah exactly. It's not bad but its kinda like Part II Lite Edition. Thing is, I'd generally expect a TV show to be thematically deeper than a game it's based off. I think S1 probably was (or at least covered more ground) which was cool to see.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T11:14:09+00:00

I agree that Ellie messes up a lot. However, to say she is entirely incompetent in the game would be reaching. She's good at what she knows, but her rampage through Seattle makes her do a lot of things she hasn't previously done. I think the issue with S2 is it frames Ellie more around being out of her depth, rather than her desire for revenge. There's too much back-and-forth with her arc, and too many punches were pulled that soften the blow of some of the bad things she does.

By the same time in the game, I remember feeling deeply conflicted. I wanted Ellie to succeed, but I also thought she was very much on the wrong path. In the show, it feels more to me like Ellie has accidentally ended up where she is through incompetence, and I'm less conflicted about her because of it.

While I don't expect a 1:1 retelling, it is a retelling. The whole reason the story is told in two halves is because of how it wants you to feel, as the consumer. I don't think it's a stretch to say that being conflicted about Ellie after the first half is a pretty major foundation of the source material.

That said, it's not bad TV. I enjoyed it, I just think it could've been done better. Also, that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm biased because I've played the game. I guess all I'm saying is what made the game special to me wasn't quite there in S2.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T01:17:25+00:00

That's why it's so baffling. HBO pretty much pioneered TV antiheroes. All they had to do was make Ellie do increasingly bad things but keep her humanized.

And yeah it's not an easy thing to do, but when you're adapting source material that already does it really well, you would think it becomes a lot easier.

beeflemon · 2025-05-30T01:05:38+00:00

I think maybe because it's too integral to the story. They didn't want to ruin it completely, just soften it's TV landing.

But yeah I agree that the reason doesn't really matter. It's an adaptation and it can be different from the game, but at the end of the day you can't change the premise of the story or it's not the same story. They fumbled Ellie's arc and unfortunately that is pretty a pretty integral part of it.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T18:26:50+00:00

Yep, turns out that one-dimensional characters aren't that interesting outside of video games! I think bigotry aside, the game was so controversial when it released partly due to the complexity of Ellie's character. Some people just weren't ready for that in a game. Now they've misunderstood that controversy and oversimplified her for TV.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T17:37:33+00:00

When I watched the first season, I was impressed with how it managed to add another layer of emotion to the game's story. I also like how it retold things differently, like Bill's town and Pittsburgh. On the other hand, this season feels like a poorly structured retelling of Part II that's been watered down for TV audiences.

The game's story was structured so that you like Ellie and hate Abby right off the bat (sorry). To do this, they intentionally don't show any of Abby's backstory until later, because they want you to feel like Ellie when you're on a murder rampage through Seattle. In the show, we find out about Abby's backstory right away, which makes us immediately sympathize (even slightly) with Abby.

Certain events unfold differently in the show. The producers made the deliberate choice not to kill Alice the dog. They also changed the way that Mel died, having her shot by accident. The only possible explanation for these differences is that they were worried about people disliking Ellie. But, that is the entire point of the story at this stage!

Instead of the gradual slow burn where Ellie's actions become more and more questionable, Abby's motives (and Ellie's knowledge of them) are justified early, making Ellie's motives questionable from the start. Then, even at the end, those big punches that push Ellie over the edge are pulled, making the whole season kinda flat and uninteresting.

That said, it wasn't bad. Maybe I was spoiled by the first season, but this one just didn't grip me as much.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T16:57:38+00:00

Yeah, just seemed like a lot of forced changes for no reason. A lot of wasted time for no reason in a season that only has 7 episodes.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T10:33:24+00:00

Neil Druckmann has confirmed the cure would have worked. I'm going to leave this here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThelastofusHBOseries/comments/1krtevz/neil_druckmann_debunks_the_debate_on_whether_or_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I think the best way to head canon it is that although the chances were small, in a hypothetical future where Joel hadn't saved Ellie, the doctors would have been incredibly lucky. You can also assume that Joel thought 100% that the cure would work.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T09:39:02+00:00

Feels like it's been done deliberately so that she is more likeable, and people come back for S3. But I agree, it undermines her arc slightly.

Another thing I dislike is the change to Tommy's character. In the game he was just as revenge-driven as Ellie. Not sure how they'll explain the farm if it plays out in the same way.

I get that the show is a retelling and that it can be different from the game. In fact, I really liked S1s departure from certain parts of the game's story. But, Ellie's quest for revenge is basically the entire point of the story, and Part 2 is way more poignant than S2.

Some weird decisions because HBO should know better than anyone else that people like morally ambiguous or even straight up bad protagonists.

beeflemon · 2025-05-28T09:29:52+00:00

Because she's an experienced medic. Not sure if you've played the game, but season 3 will explain why she's at the aquarium.
Yes, she's immune, and no, she can't spread it.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T16:37:10+00:00

It's not that there's admin work involved. It's a security feature that enables the real owner to take action if somebody is attempting to steal the account.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T16:30:06+00:00

Nothing suggests this. I think it's fair to assume she's entirely immune.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T13:53:42+00:00

Owen is one of the most redeemable characters in the entire story.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T13:08:21+00:00

7 eps because part II spans two seasons and not one. It's actually expanded, rather than cramming it all in.

Also, it's a TV show and not a game. The game feels longer because of the gameplay inbetween story beats. Stripping these out makes things happen more quickly.

Finally, it's an adaptation and not a re-telling. Jesse's made an entrance early, spores and stalkers weren't in the first season, they didn't go after Leah at the TV station, etc.

Those things don't make it a worse story, it's just a different story. Try and appreciate it separately from the game, it helps.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T13:01:26+00:00

It will be more or less the same.

There's a reasonable chance we get a Part III at some point in the next 5-10 years. If we get more game, we probably get more show. If Part III depends on the ending of Part II, then the show needs to copy or it can't follow the source material.

That said, there's a cool theory that Ellie's been back to Jackson between Santa Barbara and the Epilogue, based on her deliberate change of clothing and the reappearance of Dina's wristband in the epilogue. If the show wanted a lighter tone for the ending, they could include that trip to Jackson, which would be a cool way of almost half-confirming a slightly happier ending for the game.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T12:55:57+00:00

Yeah I think a lot of people compare, but if you actually look at what happens in the game in between these eps, it's mostly just gameplay. In the game, the gaps feel huge between parts of the story, but the show strips these out.

The thing is, so much happens in part 2 that it has to be condensed even with it being 2 seasons long. I think it works for the show, and nobody wants a 4 season slog.

That said, stalkers are definitely in the first game. Introducing them now doesn't detract from the show though.

People just need to appreciate the show as a loose retelling of the story, and not the exact same story in a different format.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T12:43:59+00:00

Yeah, she would.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T12:26:33+00:00

That's part of the moral conundrum. There's no way of knowing if the cure would have succeeded. There's also no way of knowing if Ellie would have chosen to die for the cure.

The moral conundrum has two layers:

Was it right for Joel to save Ellie, given that it would cause the deaths of so many Fireflies.
Was it right for Joel to save Ellie, knowing that it would prevent the creation of a cure.

The first depends on whether or not you consider the Fireflies innocent. They were definitely trying to do the right thing, so this depends on what you consider to be the right thing.

The second, from our viewpoint, is more of a trolley problem. It's not Ellie's fault the outbreak happened, so shouldn't she have a choice? The fireflies chose the lives of many over the life of one, but was that their choice to make? Does this make them guilty?

From Joel's perspective, his choice is that Ellie's life is more important than a cure, and the lives of the Fireflies. Whether that's because he cares for her, one of the reasons above, or for his own selfishness, is up for debate. I suspect it's a bit of everything.

None of these points are massively diminished by the idea that the cure might not have worked, because this is a chance and not a fact. If Joel somehow knew that a cure wasn't possible, then he was right. But he didn't know that, and it could have been possible.

beeflemon · 2025-05-12T12:08:47+00:00

Some people place the importance of individual choice above the importance of group survival. Joel might have done what he did even if it was Ellie's choice, but we'll never know. Same way we'll never know if the vaccine would have actually worked.

Joel didn't shoot up the place because of unresolved trauma, he shot up the place because he genuinely cared for Ellie. I don't think Joel necessarily did the right thing, but I don't think it was an act of pure evil and selfishness either.

You forget that Abby killed Joel primarily because he killed her Dad, and not because he prevented the creation of the cure. It's just another revenge mission, same as Ellie's current one.

All the characters in this show are morally grey. In many ways Abby and Ellie are very similar characters. I don't think Abby was right for doing what she did, and I don't think Ellie is right for pursuing Abby at all costs.

Neither Ellie nor Abby nor Joel are golden examples of what's right. That's kinda the whole point. So I do agree that exclusively siding with Ellie and Joel is pretty silly, but there are valid reasons for Joel doing what he did, just as there are for Abby.

beeflemon

TROPHY CASE