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

Comments

• Arethusa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Sounds great. I stopped using Facebook years ago. This can only bring their demise faster.

  source

  • HerrLewakaas@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah please lock me out of instagram, I beg you

    source
• BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They seem to have copied the approach from multiple European newspapers that consists to disable tracking if you subscribe. And unfortunately most data protection agencies seem okay with that.

  It infuriates me that you have to pay for the basic right to not be tracked, given that you already have to be particularly tech-literate to avoid tracking by yourself…

  source

  • essteeyou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I find it a tough one, because they offer a product/service that costs a fortune to maintain and operate, and if they can’t make money from your data then what do they do? Not having your data harvested is just a side-benefit of paying for the thing you use a dozen times per day.

    If they couldn’t use your data or charge then it would shut down.

    You wouldn’t run a business at a 100% loss.

    I don’t understand why people think digital things should all be free.

    source

    • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not being tracked doesn’t mean they can’t have ads.

      TV ads are still a thing and so are billboard ads.

      They could simply show ads depending on the context of the content you’re looking at.

      source
    • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You can ads without anybof the invasive tracking, and you can have paid access without any of the invasive tracking…

      I don’t think most people actually think digital things should be free, just that they’re not invasive data-hoarding piles of crap.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • zaph@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t understand why people think digital things should all be free.

      It’s not a matter of them being free. I don’t care if Facebook requires a paid subscription, what I care about is that my tech illiterate mother isn’t being tracked because she uses a website the majority of the population uses. Cable TV has a free option and always has without the need for tracking. Billboards exist and I’ve never felt tracked. Posters at the mall don’t track my shopping behavior and stores don’t change prices because they know I went to a similar store and they think they can pull one over.

      I don’t understand why people think digital things need to know everything about me and share that info with anyone.

      source
    • bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No one’s saying they can’t run ads. The problem is the extreme invasion of privacy to run targeted ads. If their business can’t survive without violating your privacy, then maybe their business doesn’t need to survive.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    and there is still ads, you don’t pay for an adfree version, just to not be tracked, which is a joke

    source
• torpak@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So you give them $14 and hope, they don’t sell your data? I never had a facebook/whatsapp account and never will and I know why.

  source
• IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This shit gets any hotter I just might hop out

  source
• torpak@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ad targeting should just be banned outright. It serves noone and creates huge pools of easy to abuse data.

  source
• uis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Here I should say that you can always donate money to good services like lemmy, mastodon, peertube or important organizations like FSF, EFF.org(if you are in USA), Linux Foudation, X.org(wayland is part of it too).

  source

  • hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Make sure it’s x.org and not x.com lbs

    source

    • KonalaKoala@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yeah, the latter appears to forward you to X/Twitter and I don’t think you want to be going there as Mastodon would be the better choice.

      source
• Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  He really wants to sink that ship, doesn’t he?

  source
• Jarmer@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  “personalized” ads. So does this mean if you pay $14 a month you’ll still get the exact same amount of ads but they just won’t be personalized? LOL

  source

  • r00ty@kbin.life ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think it is $14 not to get ads at all. I think the EU directive is likely worded as such that it states if adverts are forced on users they must be able to opt out of targeted advertising. So his (lawyers') thinking is to provide an overpriced ad-free tier to be able to say that there's an option so he can force users to get personalized ads.

    source
  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Maybe read the article? LOL

    source
• Tosti@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • Jakdracula@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They made $120 billion US last year.

    They claim 3 billion uses.

    So, do the math.

    source
  • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m picturing a bumbling idiot that clicks every ad.

    source

    • prograhammingdev@lemmy.prograhamming.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      My fiance absolutely loves clicking on ads, exclusively on Facebook. It’s terrible. I finally switched her over to Firefox with Ublock on Android but Facebook changes ad patterns so regularly they make it through probably 75% of the time regardless. Still, less tracking scripts for her now 🤷🏻‍♂️

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Could you EU people turn that around and charge fuckzuck 14 euros for every month you’ve kept your account, as that’s the apparent value of your profile?

  source

  • Rambi@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Now that’s something I could get behind… €2,352 would be pretty nice lol

    source
• Reddfugee42@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Are they going to stop allowing people to edit their own interests too? What’s the difference between not allowing personalization, and regularly clearing out their “collection” of your perceived interests?

  source
• Espi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No joke that would be great for privacy and putting users first. Users would go the product to the customers and the platform would actually need to cater to them.

  The same would happen with Twitter.

  Now, social media depends on its massive size, so even if makes the platform more user-centric, it would reduce the amount of users and reduce its value.

  source

  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    So there’s a metric called “ARPU” for social media, average revenue per user.

    Facebook’s monthly ARPU for America+Europe is $30 (Reddit’s is .49, lol)

    This is actually a pretty fair price for the service. And should be a legal requirement as an option tied to ARPU.

    source

    • uzay@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Who is calculating and publishing that metric based on what data?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Vorticity@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I feel like this is short-sighted on Meta’s part. They are going to lose users over this which is going to make Facebook just that much less relevant for the people who are willing to use it with personalized ads or pay to ONLY get non-personalized ads.

  Part of the reason that their service is popular is that it has huge market share. Every time they shave off a segment of their user base Facebook becomes that much less relevant for everyone.

  source
• Surreal@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  How about giving people a form for them to fill what kind of ads they want to see instead of spying on them to personalize ad

  source

  • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Because no one wants to see ads in general. Google does this with YouTube TV (which ad do you want to watch?) and the answer is always “neither” but that’s not an option.

    source
  • Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Partly because ads is the reason they have now for tracking you, but they hope to keep making money on your data long after you’re dead.

    source
  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    None, thanks!

    source
• r00ty@kbin.life ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I am not convinced this gets them off the hook. But I'll assume he has better lawyers than me. What it does show, is the value of forcing people to provide data to provide personalized ads.

  source

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It probably will.

    No service should be forced to give their service for free, or forced to offer it via ads. Facebook at any moment could say the service costs $100 a month to use, we don’t care what you think or say.

    source

    • SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The big question (which is disputed, even among DPAs) is whether offering this makes it OK to offer it via ads with tracking without a way to opt out for free.

      Doing “tracking ads or no service” is illegal - the consent isn’t “freely given” and thus invalid, so they’d be processing data without consent or other valid justification. Some argue that with such a model the consent is freely given…

      Either way, the max fine will be 4% of revenue, which means nothing if doing it this way doubles revenue…

      source
• TrivialBetaState@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’d like to see them try.

  source
• drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Honestly I’d pay 5 euros for instagram without ads. Just because it’s a popular channel for friends and artists I follow and the ads in the timeline are making the whole experience so difficult.

  14 is a lot though unless you work with these platforms.

  source
• PaulieDied@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  “It’s free and always will be”

  source
• Darksouls1234@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I hope this move will drive people away from degenerate Instagram and Facebook…

  source
• Spasmolytic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They’re missing the damned point. I have never used Facebook, but on any service if I’m paying a monthly fee it is to remove myself from the ad-based enshitification.

  It’s also what drives me crazy with respect to Microsoft products. I pay for MS 365, and I’d even be willing to pay for Windows if they’d leave me the fuck alone. I pay for ProtonMail and they do leave me alone, so I’ll always stick with them. Any app that I use for which I can pay to remove ads, I do it… unless it’s a subscription and I can’t quite justify the perpetual expense, like for my preferred weather app MyRadar.

  Hell, I almost bought into the MyRadar investment pitch until I saw that giving them $400 still wouldn’t net me a lifetime subscription.

  source
• aluminium@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Surprise surprise

  source
• wagoner@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Let’s not forget that paying for an ad free experience requires providing personal info on yourself that Facebook may not have. Same applies to tiktok which is testing ad free subscription.

  source
• pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I see that Mark wants to follow in Elon’s footsteps. Burn it to the ground!

  source
• Blizzard@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  He kind of looks like Morty.

  source

  • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    If you’re talking about Bob Mortimer you shut your gob mate

    source
• thejml@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  $14/mo is a bit steep, but back when I actually used Facebook, I’d have dropped $5/mo to not have any ads (or sponsored posts) and have more control over my feed. That sounds glorious… but $14/mo is a huge waste of money for the cesspool Facebook has become.

  source

  • leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Its 14pm for mobile, 10pm for desktop. Per app.

    source
• usutaki@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We are nearing the end

  source
• NoiseColor@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Lol. Do that.

  source
• FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Active users go brrrrrrt thpppppt

  source
• autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is the best summary I could come up with:

  ---

  Meta has a new plan to navigate the European Union’s tough new ad privacy rules – charge users $14 a month.

  The tech giant is considering getting customers in Europe to pay monthly subscription fees to use Instagram and Facebook if they don’t agree to let Meta use their data to serve them ads, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

  The bloc’s regulators ruled last year that Meta must give users the option to opt out of personalized ads based on their activity on their platforms.

  Showing ads based on user engagement is an integral part of Meta’s business model, but it’s one that has come under increasing pressure over the past few years.

  The potential subscription tiers are the latest sign of how Europe’s tough regulatory approach is forcing tech giants to make major changes to their businesses.

  Meta was handed a $1.3 billion fine by European regulators for data privacy violations in May, and the company also delayed the launch of its Twitter competitor Threads in Europe over regulatory uncertainty.

  ---

  The original article contains 343 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  source
• InternetTubes@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Do it. Not only will that move a large segment of the content providers away from the social network, but it will open the market up again to the competition, which includes the Fediverse. By all means shoot yourself in the foot because those “dumb f-cks” no longer trust you because you’ve burnt that good will.

  source