This is an interesting argument. I wonder how it would be handled if Facebook instead had a 2-tier system where both tiers were paid. So you'd have to pay a base fee to use Facebook (and get tracked) and then a premium tier to remove the tracking.
Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with such a system (that are obviously the reason why NOYB is filing), the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think.
Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Facebook doing it will likely drag the practice to CJEU, which is the worst outcome for this scheme because CJEU tends to not like GAFAMs "it's not against the letter, but against the spirit" crap in the slightest. I personally wouldn't be surprised if CJEU ends up shooting down the scheme as violating the GDPR.
Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with such a system (that are obviously the reason why NOYB is filing), the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think.
Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Facebook doing it will likely drag the practice to CJEU, which is the worst outcome for this scheme because CJEU tends to not like GAFAMs "it's not against the letter, but against the spirit" crap in the slightest. I personally wouldn't be surprised if CJEU ends up shooting down the scheme as violating the GDPR.