Saw this today and now I’m reconsidering if Boost is right for me. I’m really hoping this is shitty boiler plate that was accidentally copied and over looked because that is some bullshit to say “unless we decide we want to use your personal data for whatever we want”.
I know “legitimate interest” is a phrase from the cookies law but there is no legitimate interest justification for this. My data is my data and I decide who has a legitimate interest in it so advertisers can fuck off, as can Boost if this the direction it’s going.
Edit to say this blew up. I didn’t realise I was kicking as big a hornet’s nest and haven’t read all the comments yet.
To be clear, what I don’t like about this and other provisions in the terms is the language and implications around data use. I’ve no problem with ads being shown - I want developers to get paid for the work they do and that makes it possible for users to have “free” access to software if they can’t afford to purchase.
I also want to add the response from Boost’s dev below to make sure it’s visible. You’ll see that it is boilerplate but required by Google and was present in Boost for reddit. I just hadn’t seen it because I purchased it immediately based on a recommendation. It doesn’t make me happy about it but does remove some doubts I was having about the direction Boost is heading.
I will be purchasing the app to support the dev because I do like Boost but I understand not everyone can afford everything so you’ll see some other suggestions in the comments below that don’t have any ads if you’re not happy with the free version and ads with their associated loss of data privacy.
Dev here.
The dialog and its content is not created by me, it is a standard solution from Google to comply with GDPR and other laws. More info here: https://support.google.com/admob/answer/10114014?hl=en
The consent dialog is also required by Google AdMob to show ads, and it is shown when the ad network is initialized.
When the app launches, first it checks for the remove ads purchase, and if it is not present, it will initialize the ads sdk. The ad network is not initialized if the remove ads purchase is detected.
Boost for Reddit was using the very same ad networks and consent dialog.
Legit interest = We want to make money
Actually, no. “Legitimate interest” has a specific legal meaning under GDPR, and has to clear a way higher bar than just wanting to make money and always be weighed against the affected person’s interests as well.
I understand that the meaning is apparently well defined, but there is room for interpretation. I’m not aware of anyone ever challenging legitimate use reasoning, so I’m not sure how that plays out in the end.
I mean… is that not a legit interest?
Playing devil’s advocate. You have a legit interest in a job because money, I have a legit interest in my game’s users watching an ad because that pays my bills.
Is this that far off?
Do you consent for me to rob you? I may still rob you if I have a legitimate business interest.
There are already laws that make robbery illegal.
It’s a metaphor. If you pick at it too hard it falls apart. I’m illustrating the absurdity of the statement, not the legality of it.
Yes, you’ve illustrated the problem exactly. There SHOULD be laws protecting our privacy, but since there aren’t “Fuck you I’ll take your data if I feel like” is a legitimate contract while “Fuck you I’ll take your wallet if I feel like” isn’t.
I know you’re playing devil’s advocate but some people are just sick and tired of having every second of their lives monetized against their will.
You can’t even have a conversation without some algorithm analyzing every single sentence to find key words that can be used for advertisement or specific content.
I mean last night alone I was talking about how I’m an ass man to my friend. Later I open tiktok and my feed (which is usually gaming, stand up comedy, or science related videos) was nothing but thirst traps with big asses.
Yes, it is. The US may be a shithole, but get this to a court in Europe or Brazil, and the entity responsible will quickly be fined… for a lot of money, mind you.
That’s precisely why it’s not okay to have such an exception for of the user opts out of sharing private data.
the world would be a much better place if people accepted no for an answer.
It would literally be better to have said nothing. This is “we’re going to rob you, plus we’re also going to use weasel words so some people will jump to our defense and some people will be fooled into letting us rob you”
Just ask for the permission and stfu. Let people decide on their own whether to get robbed without the weasel words.
I don’t think they’re trying to say it isn’t.
They’re simplifying, if anything.
Actually, you’re absolutely correct IMO. In GDPR cookie law “legitimate interest” may refer to your interest in keeping your company afloat, aka make money.