Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security | Hacker News Reader

Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security

twipla.com

19 pointsTWIPLA36 comments

This is just generic content marketing blogspam. Submissions from higher quality sources were extensively discussed a the time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071472

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38068635

> In effect, users are expected to pay up to €228 a year to preserve their fundamental right to privacy

No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".

Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.

Or you know, keep doing what I have done for the last fifteen years: Ublock Origin.

Starbucks doesn't say "hey here's a free coffee", hand me the coffee, and then say I implicitly agreed to a 500 page lawyer-exploitable EULA by taking the coffee... and then later say "well, if you're enjoying that coffee you can give us $5 in cash instead.

Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.

Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.

I have no insights into the per-user cost for Meta to run their platform, but I have a hard time imagining that's what this is based on. I think it's much more likely that users are paying a price based on "what Meta could be making if they sold their data".

Pricing isn't based on operating costs but market value of services offered. That's how every business in the world works.

If Meta found a way to double their ad revenue from non-paying users, would you expect the price for this subscription to double?

Yes it'll actually have to more than double, since the high-value users (from perspective of advertisers) will more likely opt-in to the ad-free plan. The opportunity cost will be insane otherwise.

HS.fi had an article (in Finnish) about this today that said how it won't even increase privacy because the terms of service are completely unchanged and they'll want to keep collecting that data in case you stop paying for the ad-free version. The data they collect on you just won't be used to show you targeted ads while you pay.

https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000009982537.html

Wait..I thought this charge is for removing ads, not actually adding privacy.

The level of entitlement here is outrageous. Social media monetizes via ads. Whether or not you like that practice, if you're going to force them to allow users to turn the ads off, how can you complain about them charging a monthly subscription?

Free access to a company's services is not a fundamental right.

No one is arguing for free access. What people are arguing for is respecting fundamental rights. It is not the job of users to create business strategy plans for an enterprise. The enterprise has the burden of proof to problem solve and find a monetization strategy that both is profitable and legal. Meta still can serve ads. Ads that are GDPR compliant. So either GDPR-applicable consent (informed, unambiguous, uncoerced, specific, withdrawble) for personalization or contextual ads that require little personal data processing to serve.

I just don’t use Meta products. It’s not as simple as paying to not watch ads, your privacy is not guaranteed. IMO paying for Meta is the same as paying to have a camera watching you 24/7 and being told it’s a privilege.

> "a monthly subscription fee to stop seeing ads targeted based on their personal data"

Is this really true?

Or is the truth a "fee to stop seeing ads" and this article a big clickbait lie?

(Genuinely asking.)

This policy very plausibly is not legal. From the text of GDPR, "(42) ... Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment." Consent or else is not 'free choice'. Austrian DPA already ruled pay or okay is not GDPR compliant: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=DSB_(Austria)_-_2023-0.17... and noyb has signalled intent in fighting this policy. Furthermore, the remarks on which Meta relies given by CJEU were not binding.

Does that "privacy" include not tracking outside FB and the correlation / profiling they are already doing?

meh, I opted for the free version yesterday expecting better personalized ads and still getting the same irrelevant stuff as before. Now edge in the other hand... I've never accepted anything from them and are targeting me hard (can't find the opt-out button, the "new page" feeds are a sooo bs)

But does this mean ad free? If so, worth it for any real users.

it appears so, if you're in the EU: https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-...

This article is unclear on whether it's ad-free, but it does seem like it would be from wired

> Meta is about to roll out ad-free subscriptions on Instagram and Facebook

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-pay-for-privacy-eu...

Is it worth it? What's a "real" user?

I don't think I've ever had $200 of value out of a social media site when I compare it to, say, Netflix during its prime, or YouTube Premium, both of which are in the same ballpark. Do people spend hours a day on Facebook and feel like they got good value out (I don't mean scrolling that people regret and would rather quit).

Now for communication I can understand the value, but I don't think Messenger or WhatsApp are ad supported directly like this so I would assume aren't covered by the subscription?

Some quick googling:

Estimated users of Facebook: 3 billion. Meta annual revenue: $120 billion

3 billion × $200 is significantly more than Meta's annual revenue.

There's paying for a service and there's being ripped off.

They aren't going to get anywhere near 3 billion subscribers.

In everyplace where they can offer users a choice between the $200 subscription with no targeted advertising plan and the current no monetary cost but they use your data for targeted advertising plan most people will choose the latter.

The point is is that the value the company derives from targeted advertising against a given user is clearly an order of magnitude less than the headline $200 they ask for not being able to do it.

What guarantees are there that they don't still include your data in their analysis? For example clustering of individuals to find marketable cohorts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com