If this removed ads, added more controls on what you see and what is shared/sold to 3rd party, I'd actually consider it!
But ads are not mentioned and ads are probably worth more than 12$/user/mo and.. this would probably help them track you "better".
And then there's the problem that the users most likely to pay are more valuable than average to advertise to.
[1] Worldwide quarterly ARPU x4: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
If those users go away, the average $/user from ads goes down, because the only people seeing ads are those who are too poor to avoid it.
To an advertiser, poor people who direct their attention towards whatever is put in front of them are worth a lot less than rich people who carefully curate what their attention is directed towards. It's grody, but that's the advertising industry for you.
It probably scales all the way up until $10k/month, which is near the upper limit of what super-luxury brands, that would buy ads online, can earn per customer.
So the curious implication is that such services could be 'free' or $20k/month.
But with a changing advertising market and lower budgets, FB might view the alignment of incentives more beneficial.
Interesting, firefox on my iphone mobile[0] does not allow this...
[0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios
In a similar vein, the world does not lack ICE cars because a minority of them are electric.
In other words, a lot of people who use ad blockers are good ad targets, but the converse is not true.
There's a reason their products are so engaging and sticky—they're enjoyable to use!
And they'd be significantly more enjoyable if you didn't have the Eye of Sauron watching you and trying to manipulate you at all times.
I'd pay considerably for that.