Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | Hacker News Reader

The choice is not between privacy and a susbscription. The subscription does not include the right to be free from surveillance and data collection by Facebook. Further, there are more than two choices. A third choice is not to decide.

Yes, they will back down. It makes no sense to _block_ users simply because they will not consent to targeted ads.

Users who consent will get targeted ads. Users that do not consent will get non-targeted ads. Users who subscribe get fleeced.

Instead of the app try using FB without Javascript: https://mbasic.facebook.com

FB must have "growth" to keep Wall Street happy. _Blocking users_ is inconsistent with that objective. FB will back down but give it some time while they are forced to run this experiment.

View on HN

>It makes no sense to block users simply because they will not consent to targeted ads.

It absolutely 100% does. Advertisers in todays age only spend on targeted advertising because it not only works, but the converse of that (spamming users with random ads) degrades user experience.

> but the converse of that (spamming users with random ads) degrades user experience

The whole point of the discussion is that directed ads degraded user experience. What is your point then?

>Directed ads degraded user experience.

This is literally propaganda for people pushing for control of the internet through the idea of "privacy"

There isn't a world where someone is using and app, and would prefer to see generic advertisements versus finding out about deals on products they care about or new products that they may be interested in.

Unless of course you are bought into the bullshit bogeyman of "oh no, company is building a profile on me, that MUST mean they are going to use it for nefarious means", despite no evidence of this being true, ever. If you believe this, then you either virtue signaling off the ideology that companies and capitalism is evil, or you personally don't feel like you have enough self control to make decisions on your own despite what is being shown to you, and if so you really shouldn't have a say or vote in this.

Is it so hard to believe that other people may have different opinions from yours?

I've never knowingly clicked on an ad in my life.

I am very aware of how law enforcement, political consultants, and other organizations purchase targeting data from ad companies.

I don't want to be part of it because I don't want to be part of it.

> There isn't a world where someone is using and app, and would prefer to see generic advertisements versus finding out about deals on products they care about or new products that they may be interested in

This is literal propaganda. Who said I have to choose between bad ads and even worse ads? Are you insane?

> Unless of course you are bought into the bullshit bogeyman of "oh no, company is building a profile on me, that MUST mean they are going to use it for nefarious means"

Yes, you are insane. This is exactly what they do: profit with the ads, profit with nefarious ways they sell and transform the data they gather.

> If you believe this, then you either virtue signaling off the ideology that companies and capitalism is evil, or you personally don't feel like you have enough self control to make decisions on your own despite what is being shown to you, and if so you really shouldn't have a say or vote in this.

I think you should avoid getting near a keyboard, you doesn't seem to have enough mental acuity for a healthy communication.

Random ads?

Why that? Why not contextual ads?

E.g., if I'm on a facebook page for programming, maybe show everyone there ads for that new keyboard etc. This is without tracking THE USER, it just has to track where you are.

Same for websites. Sure this has drawbacks, but it's not like advertisers didn't make conversions before tracking got the way to go.

> Sure this has drawbacks, but it's not like advertisers didn't make conversions before tracking got the way to go.

Why would anyone settle for less without getting something in return. You wouldn't go into your job and happily take a 30% pay decrease because your boss said "it's not like you weren't surviving before".

User tracking results in better ROI. This is why advertisers pay Facebook for the privilege. And you just expect Facebook to say "oh well, shucks"?

I don't get the anger over this. For years I read "I would gladly pay X to use a service and not be spied on", and now this is an option. If you're not the customer you're the product I heard. Now you're the customer

No, with Facebook, you're paying money but you're still the product, because their core business is still ad-driven.

They are not stopping showing ads, and they are not stopping collecting data. It seems that they're just stopping using the data to target the ads.

Not to mention, you're still the product by producing content for their system and being reachable on/promoting their system.

Which goes to show that the soundbite was stupid, and wrong. You're the product on Apple too, even if you pay.

According to this, if you pay you are not shown any ads: https://www.facebook.com/help/631125599118423

>>> Users who consent will get targeted ads. Users that do not consent will get non-targeted ads. Users who subscribe get fleeced.

If as you say, when they charge members to not get targeted ads, the paying customers are getting fleeced. So what can these companies do to actually make money??

Reply on news.ycombinator.com