Then don’t access the content? Why should the user get content that someone has worked to create without having to give anything in return (whether that’s in the form of payment or information). There would be no monetary incentive to create content anymore.
It says: "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. "
It's like a butcher shop saying "the meat could be free if we could only reduce our cost by not caring about hygiene".
Edit: oops, the methaphor doesn't work at all :-D
Are you proposing that trying to make money using the internet is morally wrong? Or just that collecting user data is wrong? Or that collecting data without consent and a clear explanation is wrong? Because if the line is drawn at the latter, then that’s what GDPR is for, and so I don’t understand why people would be upset about having to click through a bunch of notices that try to make it clear how user data is being used.
Not inherently.
>Or just that collecting user data is wrong?
Yes, under any and all circumstances. The security implications alone are staggering.
I just say that pretty much every site, device and service out there violates the primary rule of the GDPR. They all store data about their users without the users consent.
One of the main points of the GDPR is that the user has to actively agree to storage of data. Making it very clear that storing can not be the default. Yet when you visit the New York Times today, they tell you:
By clicking "I Accept" or "X" on this banner,
or using our site, you consent to the use of
cookies unless you have disabled them.