Meta wants to charge EU users $14 a month if they don't agree to personalized ads on Facebook and Instagram

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨L4s@lemmy.world [bot]⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-charges-eu-users-for-ad-free-instagram-and-facebook-2023-10

Meta wants to charge EU users $14 a month if they don’t agree to personalized ads on Facebook and Instagram::Meta is considering offering ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram for $14 a month – but only in Europe.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

3arn0wl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I guess this is a fair indication then of how much Meta receives per person from advertisers…

source
- Szymon@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  There is always a grift, I’d expect the charge to users to be probably 20-50% higher than the revenue from normal users.
  
  source
  - NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Add an extra 0 if reddit API stuff was any indication
    
    source
  - scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Yes. I think they are padding this to make it feel more punitive. This flips the bird to the regulatory body, and discouraged people from switching. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t make it higher.
    
    source
- killeronthecorner@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  You’re money will always be less valuable than your data.
  
  The amount is based on the threshold at which they believe most people will just accept the ad terms rather than pay. Thus it is slightly more than pretty much any other mainstream streaming or subscription service.
  
  source
  - 3arn0wl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Perversely; I’m always less inclined to buy a product that I’ve seen advertised… “Why do they need to advertise it? It can’t be up to much.” And “Part of the ticket price has gone into advertising, so it’s not so valuable a thing.”, usually being my first thoughts.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Meta received about 4-5$ per user per month, so the Zuck is pulling everyone’s legs here.
  
  source
  - theonetruejason@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The users willing to pay are the most valuable users on the platform for advertisers because they are, let me consult me notes… will to pay for things.
    
    The logical conclusion is you must charge more for users to not get ads than your average revenue per user from ads or you end up losing money because the quality of your non paying users has taken a nose dive.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Ekybio@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
This might be unpopular, but here goes nothing:

With the correct and fitting (and fair) regulations, oversight by the government and accountabilit, this is a correct and more ethical decision.

Stuff costs money. For now. Infrastructure, wages, repairs, fixes, improvements, new features.

All these things dont come free and we only pay nothing DIRECTLY, because we pay in data, attention and privacy violations.

By fixing this issue, the access to all these things can be secured without the plattform falling appart or having to resort to invasive data harvesting. We could even make these practices illegal, because plattforms would not just die then.

And no, the price should not be so high to generate profit for the executives. Thats why regulation is so important.

In the Modern Age we live in, Social Media is at this point akin to an essential service and should therefore be regulated as such: No profit, but stable maintenance and secure access free from monetary interest for everyone equally.

source
- cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Lots of people want SM to just fall off the face of the earth, but they forget that nothing close to it has ever existed in human history. It’s completely new and there will be and have been mistakes, from giant to small. There’s no going back, only forwards, we need to learn and regulate as needed.
  
  We learned that keeping it “free” for the end user leads to severe privacy implications as the service needs to make money not just for profit but just to keep things running and put out new features and fixes.
  
  At it’s core, SM gives the smallest of us (For better or for worse) a voice to the level that in the past was achievable only for the rich and the noble and interconnects us all globally better than anything that has ever come before it.
  
  If we can learn to mitigate the bad parts I think SM will end up being a boon for humanity
  
  source
  - 0ddysseus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Its not new, its just a different platform. Pub, forum, market, square, plaza, community hall, water cooler. Humans are fundamentally social animals and there have always been public forums were the community gathers to meet, chat, and share news and gossip. Those physical places have essentially all been wiped out in modern western countries now as it let’s all people in an area gather and share ideas. That’s really bad for capitalism and for our increasingly fascist governments. So they close the pubs, run roads the the forums and close the markers to build a new Walmart. Social media is there now to provide for the need but to do it in a a way that divides people instead of bringing them together, and controls what they see and hear so they stay compliant.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  This is an insightful perspective and I agree in principle I think.
  
  the price should not be so high
  
  I think the $14 is actually egregious. Punitive even. The cost to facebook of providing content per user per month would be less than $1. Let’s not forget that they can still earn revenue from these users, it’s just the data profiling that’s limited so their ads may be less efficient to some degree.
  
  Social Media is at this point akin to an essential service
  
  Yeah, access to facebook probably is an essential service. Particularly for people who are disadvantaged or impoverished. But, I do wish it wasn’t so, and mandating that facebook provide access is the wrong approach IMO. I would rather see open, free-from-advertising platforms promoted.
  
  Imagine if every town or city had it’s own lemmy & mastodon instances - not necessarily even federated. All your fb marketplace stuff, community and social groups happening there instead of facebook.
  
  source
- where_am_i@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  People on the internet are too used to having everything for free. But then they also want no ads and trackers. Do they expect everything to be built by some slaves or by volunteers?
  
  I just don’t get why this should be an unpopular opinion at all.
  
  source
  - kuneho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Do they expect everything to be built by some slaves or by volunteers?
    
    I feel like those “I want FOSS for everything” people seriously thinks software devs are slaves who must fulfill their wishes at any time and if they happened to make money in some way or other, it’s like they are the devils themselves.
    
    source
  - Xabis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I expect some sods grandma (or even my own) to watch the ad on my behalf.
    
    source
- Thanks4Nothing@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Would have been nice if they decided to give that option during the early days when they made the decision to start mining data and selling it off. I totally would have been up for a reasonable fee to keep my data felt bad for Julian from being sold.
  
  source
  - Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    FB is struggling with an interesting problem. If you have enough early adopters, the rest of the population will follow. These things behave a bit like the critical mass in nuclear fission. Once you cross over a specific threshold, that’s when things start happening. In the early days of FB, it was all about growth and providing value to the users.
    
    Once they had enough users, they started selling user data to advertisers. At that point, the most users weren’t particularly aware of privacy, and you could argue that it still isn’t ja major concern for a most people who use platforms like Tweetook or Snapstgram. Providing a privacy friendly option wasn’t really that necessary back in those days. Providing a paid option might also hurt the ad sales, so that would have been a risky move. If you’re only harvesting data from a certain part of the users, you’re essentially selling an inferior product to the advertisers, which would make it even riskier.
    
    source
- reinar@distress.digital ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  zuck’s ego fueled endeavors cost money, actual services upkeep and development is a small fraction of it.
  
  this lizard already has insanely profitable business at hand, but it’s hard to combine steady performance for shareholders and shit like metaverse at the same time, so he needs to milk users for even more money.
  
  source
- guacupado@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  It really is kind of crazy how angry people get now at the thought of paying for something they use daily.
  
  source
46_and_2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Lol, thanks for helping convince all my relatives and friends to finally leave Facebook then, Facebook. Couldn’t think of a better incentive myself.

source
- noodlejetski@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  don’t worry, they’ll just agree to the profiling.
  
  source
  - baked_tea@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    At first I was like hell yeah finally the corrupt politicians in my country will end. Then I read your comment and saw the dry old boney finger clicking the blue button instead of the small text just to get the pop-up gone
    
    source
moitoi@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So they’re admitting regulations work. They are making a lot less money due to random ads instead of targeting ads so they will have to charge to be sure they are still making too much.

I can’t wait for the next regulations against tech corporations and social media.

source
- Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  They can’t charge their REAL customers, the ad purchasers, as much without the ads being “targeted”.
  
  $14 is unrealistic and will never be paid, but it means that it’s an option… So I’m guessing that people will be able to “opt in” to a free version with targeted ads… This whole thing is probably just a workaround.
  
  source
- torpak@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The funny part is that contextual ads are at least as effective as targeted ads. So not only is facebook violating your privacy. They are ripping of their customers at the same time.
  
  source
TheNanaimoBarScene@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Who would have thought that all those copy/pased chain posts from yesteryear were on to something:

IT IS OFFICIAL. IT WAS EVEN ON THE NEWS. FACEBOOK WILL START CHARGING DUE TO THE NEW PROFILE CHANGES. IF YOU COPY THIS ON YOUR WALL YOUR ICON WILL TURN BLUE AND FACEBOOK WILL BE FREE FOR YOU. PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON, IF NOT YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE DELETED IF YOU DO NOT PAY

source
- QuarterSwede@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Thanks for reminding me why I left Facebook god knows how many years ago.
  
  source
- scottywh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  What’s amazing is that people still to this day repost that same dumb shit…
  
  source
  - Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Well, it has worked so far! Smile
    
    source
jose1324@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Please do it. It will die so fast

source
- bob_lemon@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Not really. The amount of people that are still on Facebook but care about data privacy should be negligible. The rest will just accept personalized ads.
  
  source
  - namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I doubt the EU would look kindly upon this. Allowing people to opt out of personalised ads is done for a good reason, and punishing people who opt out like this sounds like a very hostage-like “or else” kind of tactic.
    
    Should facebook go through with this, it will be interesting to see what happens.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s weird how people froth at the mouth and post “FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES” on their Facebook page every 3 weeks while clicking blindly on OK buttons agreeing to absolutely anything and everything that gets in the way of them seeing another banal “life hack”.
    
    source
Siegfried@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Very X of you, facebook

source
- uis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  x.org
  
  source
Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I have a much cheaper method of avoiding personalised ads on Facebook and Instagram.

STOP USING FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM.

source
- corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  What’s like FB that I can move my family to? Not mast. Not Lemmy. Actual long-form stories and embedded pics and stuff like FB or G+. It has to be normy Nana friendly, with no nerd bar to get over. Any recommendations?
  
  source
  - BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    That’s the exact problem. There are Twitter and Reddit clones which are much nicer but no Facebook clone.
    
    source
  - fat_stig@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Same problem here, fortunately my FB feed is cleansed by uBlock Origin with custom scripts that block all the “suggestions for you” and other such bollocks as well as the ads. It’s surprising how little content my family actually post, means I can drop in once a week and not miss anything.
    
    source
- hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  One more time for the people in the back 🗣️
  
  source
- uis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Russia just banned them
  
  source
gnygnygny@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Go for it. Really.

source
Anonymousllama@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Do they really think their service is worth 12-15 bucks a month?

source
- DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  No, it’s a punitive fee.
  
  If you need to use facebook for whatever reason, but refuse to opt in to targeted ads, we will punish you with this fee.
  
  source
  - namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Yup, it’s just a way to force people to give up this right.
    
    I wish them the best of luck with this tactic. (not)
    
    source
- kinther@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  No
  
  source
  - Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I’d maybe be willing to pay $12-15 per annum for no user tracking. But that price per month is a joke. They just want to deter people from paying by offering an inflated price, so they can turn around in a few months and argue there is no demand for it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Maybe enshittification is actually a good thing. Hear me out: the worse things get, the more motivated people are too ask questions, migrate to alternatives, build better platforms, and hopefully 1) enact well-informed legislation, and 2) prevent what appears to be this “necessity” of enshittification from continuing to happen in an endless cycle.

source
- JasSmith@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That’s the basis for the theory behind the business life cycle. The theory goes that eventually companies mature and settle into a kind of coasting phase, where they maximise profit instead of continuing to innovate. This provides a large opening for competition, who inevitable eat the incumbent’s lunch.
  
  Indeed, on a long enough time scale, all companies eventually die. It’s just that, living in that moment, it appears that these companies are so unbelievably large and powerful that they could never be unseated. I’m sure people thought that of the Dutch East India company at the time, yet it dissolved 224 years ago.
  
  Eventually, Facebook will kill itself. It’s already done such a great job.
  
  source
  - Kiosade@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I have a family member working at FB and they said by the end of this year they will have closed down allllll the fancy new office buildings they built in the last decade or so, and revert operations to just the main, original campus. So seems like they’re on the down-and-down for sure.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Dultas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The problem is their ability to gobble up new companies that could threaten them and use any innovative patients they may hold to either enrich themselves or stifle competition or both.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Flambo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    It’s just that, living in that moment, it appears that these companies are so unbelievably large and powerful that they could never be unseated
    
    It’s also that the U.S. has shown repeatedly that it’ll prop up companies with ongoing subsidies, or even bail them out as in the 2008 crisis.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    That’s true, but it also took 200 years for it to die. 200 years is “forever” for all those people who were born and died while it existed. Even if we assume that people waited to the ripe old age of 25 to have kids That means that there could have been 7 generations of a given family that were born and died while it existed.
    
    source
- histy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Sometimes you gotta (knowingly) be a little crazy, a little delusional, juuust enough to keep going… otherwise, if it feels like a lost cause, then there’s no motivation.
    
    As I got older, I was like damn… Some people work so hard to make things worse, I gotta work at least as hard to combat it lol
    
    source
SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Well, now we’ll see if the EU finally pulls its head out of their ass and clarifies that no, “consent” gained this way isn’t “freely given”, or if they legalize the practice and make GDPR even more of a joke.

Various DPAs have taken different positions on this, unfortunately encouraging this practice.

source
- Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  You make it sound as if the EU is bad at this, while they are at the absolute forefront of fighting for our rights in several different categories.
  
  source
- FrederikNJS@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  There has already been multiple rulings under the GDPR where pages made it too hard to reject processing of personal data.
  
  Google was forced to change their consent banner to make it easier to decline.
  
  GDPR explicitly says that it must be as easy to decline as it is to accept. Paying €14 per month is not as easy as not paying €14 per month.
  
  Consent is also not “freely given” if paying is the only way to avoid consenting.
  
  source
  - SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Unfortunately, due to lack of clarity (and lack of clarification), many DPAs (privacy regulators!) have explicitly declared the “pay with data or money” model OK.
    
    Google may have been one of the very few cases where a meaningful fine was given. For almost everyone else, blatantly breaking the law paid off big time.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I seem to remember that it’s already there - the consent or lack thereof cannot be the basis for denying service.
  
  source
  - SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s unclear and as I said, some privacy regulators are saying it’s OK. Hence the need for clarification.
    
    source
- lud@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The Irish DPA must be so incredibly corrupt.
  
  source
- echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  Well, now we’ll see if the EU finally pulls its head out of their ass
  
  They’re doing plenty, what are you talking about?
  
  source
  - SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    GDPR has turned into a joke due to lack of enforcement (partially due to Ireland serving as a “privacy violation haven”). For years saying “no” to tracking required many clicks, and I don’t know of any companies that received penalties that would exceed the extra profit they made from that. Even blatantly illegal schemes where not agreeing locked you out of the web site usually didn’t get punished.
    
    Many sites still don’t get proper consent, and also check out what many consider under “necessary” or “legitimate interest” cookies/tracking that you get after you said no. In hindsight, breaking the law was the only smart thing for sites to do, and many did.
    
    Then, this bullshit. GDPR and the original explanations were pretty clear that the intent was to ban this kind of “agree or pay” scheme, and here we are. Of course they’ll do it, because they win either way. Either it’s considered legal, or there are no meaningful consequences…
    
    This is not the only thing where the EU moves at a snails pace, ignoring that industry is making a joke out of well intended regulations. Many praise the EU for making Apple adopt USB-C. What they miss is that the attempts to standardize chargers started in 2009, when most manufacturers, Apple included, promised to agree on a standard, and then the EU let Apple dance on their nose flying loopings though loopholes for 14 years. That’s right. Apple introduced Lightning after they were supposed to standardize, and the EU let them.
    
    source
FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Do you want to kill your business? Cause this is how you kill your business.

source
- tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I don’t see why.
  
  Facebook was already going to make $14/mo or whatever from ads. The EU just required that people who’d rather pay than watch ads have the option to do so.
  
  I mean, it’s just a new option.
  
  source
Gerula@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
No they won’t.

I’ll take the “or else” option, please.

source
Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Are they going to tell all the websites (with Facebook trackers) to stop tracking you when you pay? I highly doubt it.

source
- hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah exactly. All those Google and Facebook tracking pixels are still firing away.
  
  source
ThatHermanoGuy@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I hope that also includes WhatsApp. Europeans are addicted to that shit.

source
- viking@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Shit? It works across all platforms, in all countries, unrestricted and unpaid, and thus far, adfree. That’s pretty great, if you ask me.
  
  source
  - Smokeydope@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Its pretty good deal until you consider what facebook gets out of it. Privately owning the primary source of communication that a large chunk of the world uses because its free and convinent will surely have no reprocussions to end users now and later down the line.
    
    Oh who am I kidding like anyone who uses whatsapp or any meta owned service cares about things like privacy as long as they get their free communication they are happy as peaches and will take any amount of corpo dicking
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Key words: “thus far”
    
    Facebook wouldn’t have acquired it if they didn’t have plans to squeeze the living sole out of it. In due time. Their hope it’s that by then, all alternatives will be wiped out, and with it being so integrated as a daily driver, we’ll be paying a subscription, with no E2EE, sharing metadata (which btw is sometimes more valuable than the content of your messages) unwillingly.
    
    What’s funny/crazy too is that all the top execs (including Zuck himself) use Signal. That’s the irony of the digital world we live in: the closer you are to these technologies, the more you learn, and the less subjected to it you actually wanna be.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
yoz@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Still there will be some losers out there who’ll pay that $14/month because they are loyal corp simps

source
kibiz0r@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

in 2022, advertising revenue amounted to close to 113 billion U.S. dollars whereas payments and other fees revenues amounted to around two billion U.S. dollars.

With roughly three billion monthly active users as of the second quarter of 2023, Facebook is the most used online social network worldwide.

113/3 = about $38 per user per year

14*12 = $168 per user per year

Which would be a mark-up (a Zuck-up?) of 342%.

You do have to figure though, that it’s only the most active users who will opt to pay $14/month, and it’s those same highly-active users that contribute the most to the ad revenue.

Having no idea how those stats actually break down, we could take a wild guess and do a Pareto Principle 80/20.

Say the top 20% active users constitute 80% of the ad revenue, and those same top 20% all switch to the paid model:

(1130.8)/(30.2) = about $151 per VIP user per year

…which is a lot closer to the $168. Zuck-up of about 11%.

80/20 is probably cutting them too much slack, but the real markup is probably closer to (168/151) than it is to (168/38).

This is also not factoring the extra operational expense of supporting the new model.

—

Math part over, here’s my take:

This is good.

Ad-based models are toxic. We poisoned our culture, bulldozed our privacy, distorted the economy, gave unfathomable power to immature narcissistic opportunists, and underdeveloped public FOSS tech because we expected privately-owned services to be Free™ even though they could never be literally free.

This is a move towards unmasking these services and revealing the real economic gears whizzing around behind them.

The more people understand what their privacy and autonomy is worth to these companies, the more they might insist on keeping it — and maybe even seek out places where they don’t have to pay for the privilege.

—

Sources:

www.statista.com/…/annual-revenue-of-facebook

statista.com/…/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-…

source
22decembre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
14$ per month looks pretty expensive.

source
Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Does anyone realise how expensive that is? I reckon you could run a lemmy or mastodon instance charging users 1% of that.

source
fosforus@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
static.wikia.nocookie.net/…/latest?cb=20211018230…

source
AbidanYre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
All that’s going to do is incentivize a federated alternative.

source
MonkderZweite@feddit.ch ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Cool. Btw, when do you fix your share buttons? They’re still tracking without consent, right?

source
csm10495@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I can’t imagine anyone paying for this.

source
woodgen@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
But I was supposed to be the product!

source
ogeist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Do not threaten me with a good time not paying for things I don’t need, young man

source
Bruncvik@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Earlier this year, I made a small experiment: I stopped checking my Facebook for three months. During that time, I received about 250 notifications of new posts by my friends. When I logged back in, out of the first 100 posts on my feed, 24 were from my friends and another 7 from groups I subscribed to. The rest were ads or “suggested” content. Checking my feed every day after that, I averaged 2 posts from my friends and 2 from my groups in the top 20 posts. I have since stopped checking Facebook altogether, and by this time I don’t think even anonymized ads will get me back.

source
bleepbloopbleep@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
First they manipulate their algorithms so that small businesses lose almost all visibility… Except when buying ads.

Now this?

Does that actually mean businesses won’t even reach their potential customers with paid ads anymore?

source
itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So your personal data is essentially worth about $14 a month.

You are worth about $200 a year to advertising companies per service. What a scam.

source
set_secret@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
$14 a month is insanely. maybe 1 dollar a month is reasonable. given they’ll still be working their ads into 80% of the bullshit that is Facebook feeds.

source

-> View More Comments