this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
888 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59708 readers
5367 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3arn0wl 210 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I guess this is a fair indication then of how much Meta receives per person from advertisers...

[–] [email protected] 130 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There is always a grift, I'd expect the charge to users to be probably 20-50% higher than the revenue from normal users.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] killeronthecorner 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Your 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.

[–] 3arn0wl 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ekybio 112 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] cm0002 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

p.s. I don't use Facebook. Or any other social media really.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 46_and_2 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, thanks for helping convince all my relatives and friends to finally leave Facebook then, Facebook. Couldn't think of a better incentive myself.

[–] [email protected] 88 points 1 year ago (1 children)

don't worry, they'll just agree to the profiling.

[–] baked_tea 16 points 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

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] QuarterSwede 22 points 1 year ago

Thanks for reminding me why I left Facebook god knows how many years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I have a much cheaper method of avoiding personalised ads on Facebook and Instagram.

STOP USING FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jose1324 54 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please do it. It will die so fast

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Siegfried 54 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago

Go for it. Really.

[–] Anonymousllama 47 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Do they really think their service is worth 12-15 bucks a month?

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hiramfromthechi 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Maybe enshittification is actually a good thing. Hear me out: the worse things get, the more motivated people are to 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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are they going to tell all the websites (with Facebook trackers) to stop tracking you when you pay? I highly doubt it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gerula 29 points 1 year ago

No they won't.

I'll take the "or else" option, please.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

[–] Eheran 34 points 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] FontMasterFlex 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you want to kill your business? Cause this is how you kill your business.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 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.

[–] 22decembre 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

14$ per month looks pretty expensive.

[–] fat_stig 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still there will be some losers out there who'll pay that $14/month because they are loyal corp simps

[–] shadycomposer 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there will be far more losers who will happily hand over their data in exchange of free service

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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:

(113*0.8)/(3*0.2) = 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 11% than it is to 342%.

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:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268604/annual-revenue-of-facebook

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Cool. Btw, when do you fix your share buttons? They're still tracking without consent, right?

[–] AbidanYre 21 points 1 year ago

All that's going to do is incentivize a federated alternative.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But I was supposed to be the product!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (20 children)

I hope that also includes WhatsApp. Europeans are addicted to that shit.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] ogeist 18 points 1 year ago

Do not threaten me with a good time not paying for things I don't need, young man

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't imagine anyone paying for this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

Can I just start selling my own data on the internet for a subscription fee? Might as well capitalize on my boring lige.

[–] Bruncvik 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›