>"It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable"
Do societies have rights? Where are these rights defined, and how are they limited (if they are at all)? Are you talking about constitutions (and therefore states), or 'international law'?
Obviously within the context of this discussion, we are talking about states (in this case the EU) making laws.
As to whether or not, they have a right to make laws? I think that’s outside of the scope of this discussion because they clearly already made the law and meta isn’t challenging their right to do so.
I did not think it was obvious, and thought that the parent's definition of 'society' was significant to the discussion. The EU is not a state, though it does make laws. As to whether it has a 'right' to make laws, that depends on your view of rights, and may involve Political Authority (which is somewhat problematic).
I was replying to a comment, not directly addressing Meta.
Anyone or any group can make a rule; highwaymen and pirates can make rules. The parent comment was about a “right” to do so, which begged the question as to the origin of the right.
The reason I think it's reasonable to limit your right to sell yourself as a slave is because if it wasn't limited then a lot of people in very precarious economic situations would sell themselves and there would be a very real interest in creating those situations to force more people into slavery. You can see that with the usurious interest charged by payday loan companies. Usury is also usually illegal in civilized societies for a similar reason.
Similarly you shouldn't be allowed to abrogate your right to privacy because it creates an incentive to force other people to do so as well.
Do societies have rights? Where are these rights defined, and how are they limited (if they are at all)? Are you talking about constitutions (and therefore states), or 'international law'?