> Web users will be charged £2.99 a month and mobile phone users £3.99 a month to scroll through Facebook and Instagram without targeted ads.
I wonder how much information this provides about the relative value of mobile users vs web users. It's complicated by the fact that part of the pricing strategy here is likely not maximizing revenue as much as it is…making it just too expensive for many people to want to pay, thus shaping public opinion in the right direction.
> If the accounts are linked, users only need to pay one monthly fee.
Is this because they manage to get some value from that edge existing in the graph even if they can't turn that into ad revenue?
This article is on theguardian.com , and it has started to require a paid subscription for all readers who don't want to share their data with 131 third parties. There is no privacy-respecting free option. The paid subscription is £5 per month, and it doesn't eliminate all ads. (This requirement may depend on which country you're in.)
I know two people who have been scammed by ads pushed on Instagram. One for a fake sell of clothes and another for fake reselling of concert ticket. In both instances, price of that scam was worth multiple years of subscription.
The problem with Facebook, beyond just ads, is that its algorithm pushes so many posts from groups that I'm not in and don't want to see. I want an option to only see posts from people I'm friends with and groups that I'm in.
I wonder how would the world would have been if these services were paid by their users only, so algorithms optimized for user satisfaction instead of engagement.
Everything on these platforms feels like an ad. On Facebook, I hardly see posts from my friends anymore, just a relentless stream of ads and algorithm-driven 'recommendations' (which are just ads in disguise). Who in their right mind would pay for that?
These paid offerings should include not only an ad-free experience, but also getting rid of all the dark patterns and other manipulative crap Meta loves doing in their apps and services. You know, preferences that actually stick forever, notifications that only notify you of things that actually happened, feeds that only contain content from accounts you follow and don't force-feed you recommendations, all that.
The day instagram "proposed" me this deal is the day I uninstalled the app from my phone, it's been a few months now, 0 regret. I can take ads, but for some reason this was the final straw
I am not a Facenbook fan -- I deleted my account in 2016 and when I tried to come back recently and give Zuck a second chance, my account was summarily banned for being "inauthentic" (completely with a link to the policy, which 404'd).
I'd been prepared to have to upload a DL to prove I was me, but never got that chance.
Anyway, I think this is fine. A lot of rhetoric about social networks is swayed by teenagers and young adults with either zero ability to make online purchases or limited means.
But many of the harms around social media are things like being served beauty ads when you have body dysmorphia -- dastardly stuff preying on people's weaknesses to serve ads.
Remove that perverse incentive, and maybe Mark will make better decisions. Some of remember the early Facebook, with robust granular privacy controls.
Then the wall came and it all came tumbling down... that could change.
The people who are willing and capable of affording such subscription prices are likely also the same people who have the purchasing power to click on ads and buy things. So I don't understand the logic behind this.
I would happily pay 10x this money to have all Meta products, websites and trackers excluded entirely from my life. Here's a revenue stream for you, Luck!
18 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 33.0 ms ] threadI wonder how much information this provides about the relative value of mobile users vs web users. It's complicated by the fact that part of the pricing strategy here is likely not maximizing revenue as much as it is…making it just too expensive for many people to want to pay, thus shaping public opinion in the right direction.
> If the accounts are linked, users only need to pay one monthly fee.
Is this because they manage to get some value from that edge existing in the graph even if they can't turn that into ad revenue?
Edit: OK the wording was "Sign up. It's free (and always will be)" so I guess that remains true.
I think we know the answer to that one.
I'd been prepared to have to upload a DL to prove I was me, but never got that chance.
Anyway, I think this is fine. A lot of rhetoric about social networks is swayed by teenagers and young adults with either zero ability to make online purchases or limited means.
But many of the harms around social media are things like being served beauty ads when you have body dysmorphia -- dastardly stuff preying on people's weaknesses to serve ads.
Remove that perverse incentive, and maybe Mark will make better decisions. Some of remember the early Facebook, with robust granular privacy controls.
Then the wall came and it all came tumbling down... that could change.