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.

  • 3arn0wl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

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

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 years 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.

        • maymay@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          While that’s totally fair, I’d argue that new businesses have to reach customers somehow, and social media is a cheap and effective advertising tool.

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years 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

      • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years 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.

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think the idea of social media dividing us ignores the scale of it. All those other examples you gave were very local, and in that environment a consensus can form about certain political or ideological views. Those views could be vastly different than those a similar sized community holds 100 miles away though. Social media and it’s global scale exposes those differences and makes consensus on any sort of issue impossible.

          At the same time it also allows for minority solidarity outside of the traditional local community. For example there may only be 1 or 2 LGBT+ people in a town, which can easily be marginalized, shamed and ignored. But if they’re able to communicate across geographic boundaries they’re able to create a larger stronger community that is harder to ignore. It also does the same for nazis though.

        • prayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          “Gathering together and sharing ideas is bad for capitalism” care to explain that point further? I’m not really following.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      It really is kind of crazy how angry people get now at the thought of paying for something they use daily.

  • 46_and_2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years 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.

        • lorkano@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          knowing EU they would be against and just add a rule that every app should have ability to opt out in EU in like 2 years :D

        • bob_lemon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s not all that different from the “Accept cookies or pay”-walls that news outlets have implemented in the last couple of years.

  • HiramFromTheChi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • HiramFromTheChi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years 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

  • SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years 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.

  • Arethusa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Damn, I was reading this and my head was correcting it to $14/mo for an ad-free experience, and even that was ridiculous.

      $14/mo for “ads, but we pinky swear that we won’t use the data we’re still definitely collecting on you to prepare your ads” is just a joke.

      How about instead, Meta pays out $14/mo per user, for the data they’re collecting?