The trackers they build into sites would still exist to track non-paying customers, and they'd have to track the paying customers enough to differentiate from non-paying.
And if you're saying that all of Facebook becomes a subscription, you still end up with the problem that Facebook has pointed out: small sites that earn income from Facebook by implementing their tracking widget would lose that source of income.
I think we should be more vocal about the extensions and products that help block FB (and other) web trackers, to force their model to change, but I think we're a long way away from anything truly effective.
Completely agree! There's cannot be any grey area here. It must be all ad-based or all-subscription. But the move seems impossible
If you don't browse sites that do this tracking, then you shouldn't care either way about this whole FB/Apple controversy/dispute.
If you do browse these sites, get ready for the potential of a major shift in those sites' business model.
Also, they can't sell privacy, just that they won't track using their network. If your information is being taken by multiple parties and they are all pouring it into the same data soup, the value of paying any particular spy off seems pretty limited. Apple can try to sell privacy, because they are in the position to fight all the spies simultaneously (we'll see how effective it is, seems like a really hard task but it is a good sign that they've got Facebook worried).
AlsoAlso it is possible that the value of tracking is non-linearly related to the number of people you are tracking (if three people are somehow similar I might be able to apply some insight gleaned from one to the other two). So, they might fundamentally want quite a bit more than any reasonable person would be willing to pay for their service, to stop tracking.
Not my problem. Price it in and be transparent about how they are using data.
Simply paying alone often isn't enough -- this sort of sleezy behavior is endemic.
* Nobody seems to implement these
* The risk of smart devices actively working against us is too high
* I have 0% faith in Samsung's ability to keep a fridge OS updated over the, whatever, 20 year lifespan of a fridge.
Unfortunately so many things are "smart" nowadays that it can be hard to avoid, but at least I can keep the wifi password away from the devices. For now. Until the manufacturers start including cell modems in the things.
"Connect to WiFi?"
[Skip]
"Please connect to Wi-Fi."
Also read this
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
Eg build new products that work with Facebook and sell them.
An ethical Facebook may find it could enter new markets.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-pe...
That said, I definitely believe that collecting subscription money would not stop them from trying to collect data about you, for advertising purposes. They'd view subscription as just a new revenue stream (yay!).
Facebook will never stop collecting data on its users as long as it exists.
If they were forced to find an alternative income source, they'd be better off going with freemium.
this is a very hand-wavy slippery-slope argument. You think the entire social network crumbles because of 20% of users? The lack of right not to be part of a network (shadow profiles) is one of the problems with FB, so if SNs can't exist without payment, maybe they just shouldn't exist. I personally think society values SNs to the extent that this *won't8 happen, but let it be an exercise in seeing how much SNs are truly valued.
I don't think people are as indifferent to "being the product", or are becoming less so.
The problem is that Facebook only represents good value (paid in ad views, personal data, or money as you suggest) if lots of your friends stay on it. It needs the "network" aspect of social networking to operate. Consequently, even if you're willing to pay $1/month if your friends aren't to pay then that $1 represents terrible value and you'll leave because there's no value in paying.
This is the inherent problem in charging for any 'network' product - it has to represent good value for everyone not just a few people.
1. They haven't thought of it.
2. They underestimate how profitable it would be.
3. It would be less profitable than what they're doing now.
Option 1 seems ridiculous. Option 2 is possible if Facebook is blinded by corporate inertia, or if enough people working directly on the ads feel threatened. But there are a lot of smart people working there, who stand to make a lot of money by increasing profits.
So I'm going with option 3. They don't do it because spying on everyone is more profitable.
That’s social media except only founders and ceos post because disagreement doesn't affect their ability to exchange time for food and shelter, unlike all the employees and candidates
Some people would pay for Facebook
But Facebook’s cash cow is every small business or even idea will pay to target ads. Any corporate-led disruption to how many people that would target will be a massive deterrent to use Facebook’s platforms.
I need inmail, I’m not a recruiter or candidate
Now I wonder if this goes against an App Store policy somewhere or if this is one way Apple will combat such an attempt.
That's exactly what it already is and we're past the point where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
As despicable as Facebook’s behaviour is as far as its users are concerned, at least one could claim that there is an implicit contract (I am sure everything is explained clearly in 2pt white font on a white background on a page that’s not linked to and not indexed by Google). There is no such excuse for non-users who are tracked all the same.
https://whotargets.me/en/much-facebook-makes-per-user-per-mi...
Smart shareholders/CEO's think about brand as well, think long term as well.