The (sometimes) unwritten part of all of those demands is a reasonably priced ad-free version. Down the thread somebody stated an annual revenue of $18 per EU user, so they want to make an order of magnitude more revenue on you in order to not show you ads. Is that reasonable? I don't think so
I mean, I pay for YouTube Premium, as I use YouTube regularly.
I won't pay for this, as I use Facebook approximately once a year. I wonder what that will do to Facebook's user numbers if they choose to get rid of users like me though. I suspect the actively active userbase to be much smaller than their usual billion+ user count.
(Pre-Musk even) Twitter gave me an ultimatum about consenting to tracking across the internet or deleting my account. This is why I no longer have a twitter account.
I pay for YT Premium because I think the price is well worth it.
There's no universe where I trust Zucc and Meta. They're just gonna take my money, still collect every molecule of information they can about me and anyone even slightly related to me (while building shadow profiles of the ones without an account), and probably STILL show ads, just more cleverly hidden. (not that I use FB mind you, just in a theoretical world where I did and indeed got offered to pay for FB with no ads)
Showing ads to users is a minor aspect of FB's business model. The data collection and shady markets around it are far more lucrative. By charging a subscription they get users to pay them twice: with the actual subscription, and with their personal data like everyone else, which they'll still profit from.
Plus now they get some good PR in Europe, and potentially more users that buy into this marketing tactic. Absolutely evil company.
I am certainly not going to pay for Facebook. I hate everything about it and barely spend any time there.
If I could pay for it to be sane, to actually show what my friends were up to in chronological order, to show what is around me of interest etc we might be talking.
Of course not. It's a complete scam. Imagine paying money for the privilege of doing market segmentation for them. Not to mention the fact they're still vacuuming up vast amounts of your personal information for their surveillance capitalism machine.
Ads aren't the problem with facebook. It's the crappy UI that makes most posts and comment threads unreadable and videos unwatchable. Remember when clicking close or maximize on a video would actually close or maximize a video?
I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive.
When they introduced ads (2012 I think), they also removed the ability see a feed that was a direct reflection of your social graph.
They also jumbled the feed so you can never return to the last thing you were looking at, unless you explicitly "Like" it and then fish through your Activity history.
If I had any assureance they would revert to the pre-2012 UI/UX I'd be tempted by this offer, but I'm not in the EU so it doesn't matter to me.
> I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive.
It's quite simple. You are not the customer; you are the product. The UI/UX for marketers is quite polished. The UI/UX for the users is as twisted as it needs to be to keep you around. It's like giving your dog one of those bowls that forces them to eat slower.
My problem with Facebook is that everyone has stopped posting. Only 2 of my ~100 friends posts regularly anymore. This leads Facebook to polluting my News Feed with very very low quality “suggested posts”. It’s awful content.
I think that no matter how people feel about the whole privacy/ad thing, it's an additional option... and I think everybody is better off having an additional option than not.
But the problem is that a bunch of EU countries have been letting their local newspapers run the same "a subscription or consent to personalize ads" playbook from day 1 of GDPR, with no consequences for 5 years. And there is going to be a paper trail on that, whether it is newspapers that got this approved with their DPAs or it was "just" that the DPAs have been silently burying the user complaints rather than acting on them.
It's going to be quite hard for those DPAs to apply a different policy to Facebook.
I recognize the spirit of your comment; however, "where the money comes from" is of immense importance to a business. When revenue comes from the end users, the business is properly incentivized to serve the users. When the revenue comes from 3rd party advertisers, the relationship between the business and its users is perverted.
I'd love to pay for YouTube but they insist on bundling it with YouTube Music and I already pay for Spotify.
Now maybe they are giving me YouTube Music for free and the price would be the same without it - but it doesn't feel that way and it's enough to make me not subscribe. This kind of shenanigans is enough to drive me and probably many others away.
It's £12.99/month. Would I pay that if the bundling had never been offerered? It feels quite high - I've hit my limit of streaming services I'm prepared to pay for at the moment. I'd probably pay half that for ad-free YouTube.
Surprisingly (to me at least) I'm actually finding enough good content on TikTok to make up for the fact that I can't block ads on YouTube any more. Thus the great cycle of enshittification continues.
This is why the model is doomed. Even if they offer a subscription service, the platform is still built to serve ads, along with all of the user hostile behavior that made Facebook horrible.
Imagine how different things would look if Facebook adopted a subscription model early on before they became an ad-infested pile of garbage.
Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.
Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.
Would be interesting to see a "price" for users actually being shown generic ads but with absolutely no profiling or other "personalized" experience.
I would never trust that entity anyway, even if they offered it, but curious what fraction of their haul is really the surveillance and behavioral profiling part as distinct from the placing-ads-on-a-surface part (which is how newspapers, TV and billboards operated forever).
The economics of ad-supported but non-tracking platforms is an important parameter as we contemplate what options do we have for less evil online platforms.
Great. Now people can pay FB to not see any ads, while FB will still collect their data and sell it to data brokers.
All social media sites should pay users to use their services in exchange for their data. The cost of them providing a service pales in comparison to the value of user data. And there's no way they're giving up that lucrative part of their business.
Make no mistake. This is not some benevolent side of FB where they're seeing the evil of their ways. This is just a marketing tactic to attract more users they can exploit.
FB does not sell to data brokers and because fb is a public company when know exactly how much they profit from user data. Overall FB made about $3.22 per user and the vast majority of that came from selling ads.
Give them uBlock Origin? It's free, and as far as I'm aware removes (as in: makes them invisible) all FB ads including the sponsored posts or whatever it's called in the timeline. Technically not the exact same thing as not being served ads in the first place (which presumably is what you'd be paying for), but still, worth it.
Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are the only major sites that are able to circumvent my adblocker. Between the three of them, YouTube provides an incredibly high value for the price they charge, while the other two are of limited benefit in comparison. Facebook has also declined greatly in the past couple of years, while YouTube has improved greatly.
I would gladly pay for a version of Instagram without adverts but I don't see how it's possible.
They can eliminate the "sponsored posts" but the algorithm is still going to recommend to me all sorts of poisonous stuff for engagement. That's the real problem that I'd like to pay away - just leave me with what I follow and nothing else.
What I think is going to happen - if interest rates persist and wars keep on waging, that you'll pay the subscription but you'll still see the ads and if you want not to see the ads AT ALL then you'll have to pay for some premium tier or something.
This is hostage negotiation, not a reasonable price. The revenue per user comparisons are absurd.
What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention.
Facebook used network effects to monopolize its audience and then switched them to ad consumers when they had the eyeballs. There is no way to launch such an ad heavy service in an upfront way.
Fair proposition I guess. Privacy is important but leaves the question - how to fund the platform which isn't cheap to operate for sure.
Not a fan boy at all, far from it but have to hand it to the self driving batteries on the wheels guy - he did it with twitter and then others are moving in that direction it seems.
Seems like a true consent based "Reject all" button is a critical danger to Facebook's business model. Other articles [1] report they are currently in violation of GDPR rights in Europe.
> The move follows years of privacy litigation, enforcements and court rulings in the EU — which have culminated in a situation where Meta can no longer claim a contractual right (nor legitimate interest) to track and profile users for ad targeting. (Although, at the time of writing, it is still doing the latter — meaning it is technically operating without a proper legal basis. But this summer Meta announced an intention to switch to consent.)
> [...]
> As we reported earlier this month, Meta is relying on a line in a ruling handed down by the bloc’s top court, the CJEU, earlier this year — where the judges allowed the possibility — caveated with “if necessary” — of an (another caveat) “appropriate fee” being charged for an equivalent alternative service (i.e. that lacks tracking and profiling). So the legal fight against Meta’s continued tracking and profiling of users will hinge on what’s necessary and appropriate in this context.
Typical shady Facebook behavior trying to force everyone to press "Accept all" since otherwise their business model is broken. Hopefully the EU will move quickly to close the legal loophole they are trying to exploit.
Of course they will. Paying for this scam will only increase the value of your attention and the value of the personal information they sell. Demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay extortion fees not to be bothered will only make them advertise to you even more.
Ads are only one annoyance. What about the surveillance and data collection (user data, metadata, telemetry, etc.). Do the subscription terms prohibit FB/IG from collecting data or limit what Meta and subsidiaries can do with collected data.
The sting in the tail here: you will not be advertised to, but only as long as you remain subscribed. Your behaviors are still collected while paying ransom, and once you stop paying, as a self-identified high-value ad target, you can expect to be a roast on a spit.
paxys|2 years ago
uncletammy|2 years ago
The problem I have is trust. Ads or nit, I no longer trust Facebook to not continue violating my privacy WHILE I'm a paying customer.
The trust has been broken and without data transparency and regulations with teeth, I simply won't give them another chance.
goldinfra|2 years ago
It seems designed to be priced as high as possible, so that users don't choose it and they can claim no one wants it, and that they have consent.
If it was €2.99/mo, which seems much more reasonable, how many people would choose it?
garblegarble|2 years ago
Macha|2 years ago
I won't pay for this, as I use Facebook approximately once a year. I wonder what that will do to Facebook's user numbers if they choose to get rid of users like me though. I suspect the actively active userbase to be much smaller than their usual billion+ user count.
(Pre-Musk even) Twitter gave me an ultimatum about consenting to tracking across the internet or deleting my account. This is why I no longer have a twitter account.
nitwit005|2 years ago
sensanaty|2 years ago
There's no universe where I trust Zucc and Meta. They're just gonna take my money, still collect every molecule of information they can about me and anyone even slightly related to me (while building shadow profiles of the ones without an account), and probably STILL show ads, just more cleverly hidden. (not that I use FB mind you, just in a theoretical world where I did and indeed got offered to pay for FB with no ads)
imiric|2 years ago
Plus now they get some good PR in Europe, and potentially more users that buy into this marketing tactic. Absolutely evil company.
throw_pm23|2 years ago
tomjen3|2 years ago
If I could pay for it to be sane, to actually show what my friends were up to in chronological order, to show what is around me of interest etc we might be talking.
eviks|2 years ago
matheusmoreira|2 years ago
m348e912|2 years ago
I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive.
RichardCA|2 years ago
They also jumbled the feed so you can never return to the last thing you were looking at, unless you explicitly "Like" it and then fish through your Activity history.
If I had any assureance they would revert to the pre-2012 UI/UX I'd be tempted by this offer, but I'm not in the EU so it doesn't matter to me.
gorkish|2 years ago
It's quite simple. You are not the customer; you are the product. The UI/UX for marketers is quite polished. The UI/UX for the users is as twisted as it needs to be to keep you around. It's like giving your dog one of those bowls that forces them to eat slower.
basisword|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
zeroonetwothree|2 years ago
janejeon|2 years ago
londons_explore|2 years ago
However, the EU requires a third option: Unpersonalized ads.
Facebook can't require you to pay money to have them not analyze what you do and profile you to get more money out of ads.
And everyone knows that personalized ads are worth 10x more than Unpersonalized ones.
jsnell|2 years ago
But the problem is that a bunch of EU countries have been letting their local newspapers run the same "a subscription or consent to personalize ads" playbook from day 1 of GDPR, with no consequences for 5 years. And there is going to be a paper trail on that, whether it is newspapers that got this approved with their DPAs or it was "just" that the DPAs have been silently burying the user complaints rather than acting on them.
It's going to be quite hard for those DPAs to apply a different policy to Facebook.
seydor|2 years ago
But then again it is sad to see that people are actually willing to pay for such kind of content.
gorkish|2 years ago
andybak|2 years ago
Now maybe they are giving me YouTube Music for free and the price would be the same without it - but it doesn't feel that way and it's enough to make me not subscribe. This kind of shenanigans is enough to drive me and probably many others away.
It's £12.99/month. Would I pay that if the bundling had never been offerered? It feels quite high - I've hit my limit of streaming services I'm prepared to pay for at the moment. I'd probably pay half that for ad-free YouTube.
Surprisingly (to me at least) I'm actually finding enough good content on TikTok to make up for the fact that I can't block ads on YouTube any more. Thus the great cycle of enshittification continues.
Zambyte|2 years ago
internetter|2 years ago
mjamesaustin|2 years ago
Imagine how different things would look if Facebook adopted a subscription model early on before they became an ad-infested pile of garbage.
zeroonetwothree|2 years ago
hi5eyes|2 years ago
Tangokat|2 years ago
paxys|2 years ago
sophiebits|2 years ago
Factoring that people willing to pay probably skew wealthier probably skew more profitable, $10 seems about right.
janejeon|2 years ago
Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.
baby|2 years ago
zeroonetwothree|2 years ago
bluish29|2 years ago
Also will this actually improve the experince or the timeline will still be dominated by “suggested for you” and “more like that”.. etc?
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
nologic01|2 years ago
I would never trust that entity anyway, even if they offered it, but curious what fraction of their haul is really the surveillance and behavioral profiling part as distinct from the placing-ads-on-a-surface part (which is how newspapers, TV and billboards operated forever).
The economics of ad-supported but non-tracking platforms is an important parameter as we contemplate what options do we have for less evil online platforms.
imiric|2 years ago
All social media sites should pay users to use their services in exchange for their data. The cost of them providing a service pales in comparison to the value of user data. And there's no way they're giving up that lucrative part of their business.
Make no mistake. This is not some benevolent side of FB where they're seeing the evil of their ways. This is just a marketing tactic to attract more users they can exploit.
space_fountain|2 years ago
csmarshall|2 years ago
lawlessone|2 years ago
It would be a good gift for older people that tend to click their way to malware.
stinos|2 years ago
carlosjobim|2 years ago
throwaway22032|2 years ago
They can eliminate the "sponsored posts" but the algorithm is still going to recommend to me all sorts of poisonous stuff for engagement. That's the real problem that I'd like to pay away - just leave me with what I follow and nothing else.
wg0|2 years ago
munk-a|2 years ago
alex_young|2 years ago
What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention.
Facebook used network effects to monopolize its audience and then switched them to ad consumers when they had the eyeballs. There is no way to launch such an ad heavy service in an upfront way.
matheusmoreira|2 years ago
YES. Our attention is ours. It's not theirs to sell off to the highest bidder. It's part of our cognitive functions and as such it's inalienable.
It's straight up offensive that they think they're doing us a favor by not advertising to us. Truth is advertising should be illegal.
wg0|2 years ago
Not a fan boy at all, far from it but have to hand it to the self driving batteries on the wheels guy - he did it with twitter and then others are moving in that direction it seems.
ViewTrick1002|2 years ago
> The move follows years of privacy litigation, enforcements and court rulings in the EU — which have culminated in a situation where Meta can no longer claim a contractual right (nor legitimate interest) to track and profile users for ad targeting. (Although, at the time of writing, it is still doing the latter — meaning it is technically operating without a proper legal basis. But this summer Meta announced an intention to switch to consent.)
> [...]
> As we reported earlier this month, Meta is relying on a line in a ruling handed down by the bloc’s top court, the CJEU, earlier this year — where the judges allowed the possibility — caveated with “if necessary” — of an (another caveat) “appropriate fee” being charged for an equivalent alternative service (i.e. that lacks tracking and profiling). So the legal fight against Meta’s continued tracking and profiling of users will hinge on what’s necessary and appropriate in this context.
Typical shady Facebook behavior trying to force everyone to press "Accept all" since otherwise their business model is broken. Hopefully the EU will move quickly to close the legal loophole they are trying to exploit.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/30/meta-ad-free-sub-eu/
OrvalWintermute|2 years ago
matheusmoreira|2 years ago
1vuio0pswjnm7|2 years ago
gausswho|2 years ago
nymalt|2 years ago