Social networking as a fundamental human right? I find the idea ludicrous, but if, then request the governments to build and operate them.
Social networking as a fundamental human right? I find the idea ludicrous, but if, then request the governments to build and operate them.
And the price they’re asking for is deliberately exorbitant so people will never choose it. Do you truly not see the end game?
It’s like Meta opened a restaurant where they serve food for free and popularised it to the point some families only see each other over those meals. A few years after they hooked everyone we found out they lace the food with drugs, so we make a law saying you can’t do that without consent. To which Meta’s reaction is to introduce a new plan where they will serve you food with fewer drugs in exchange for beating the crap out of you every time you come in.
You have the right to not be served foods with drugs and to not be beaten down. If Meta can’t operate a restaurant without doing either and sustain a business, that is their failure.
It boggles the mind that people defend corporations who exploit their users, giving them a pass to do anything as long as they throw some rancid peanuts on the ground for free.
It seems to me FB is saying people need to either:
- pay money, or
- consent to handing over their data, or
- have their account shut
I know which option I'm choosing! But what is so wrong about this trilemma?
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.
You need to be able to freely choose to not consent “without detriment”. Meta would like to argue the point, but I think it’s pretty clear, and they’ve lost everything so far.
* When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.*
The way I interpret that is that requiring consent for tracking / data collection for marketing is pretty much always ruled out since it can never actually be necessary.
One can display ads without tracking/profiling someone.
The issue here isn't the ads, the issue here is the profiling. So in that regard Meta is fully allowed to run as many ads as they want, as long as they comply to GDPR (which says nothing about the ability to advertise, only about the ability to use personal/profiling data).
> Posters, signs and other such ads in the real world exist without tracking.
They used to, but many posters now include fairly sophisticated tracking software—in particular the luminous/screen types. We know what it’s like to have paper glued to boards, and that existed in the real world, but it’s not that clear-cut anymore.
Facebook can show all the ads they like, and have a "pay to not see them" option too.
Nobody, absolutely nobody said that ever. So the question is why are you asking that question? No, social networks are not a fundamental right. Privacy is. What is so hard to understand about that?
None of the services I pay costs that much yearly, and sum of top 5 most expensive services I use is still below that amount.
...or they're just an extremely inefficient company, I don't know.
There are plenty of companies running non-targeted ads that are doing just fine, and don't cost millions of dollars to run a year. Facebook wants scale at any cost, and that is unacceptable.
The argument that we have to put up with something we never asked for, but has been carefully integrated into society to be utility-like is disingenuous. I don't want Facebook or WhatsApp, but in the Netherlands they are now used by schools, and even government agencies for communication.
You can't have it both ways: Either you're indispensable (something Facebook has worked very hard to become) and therefore treated as a utility, or you're a private company that can do as they please.
You wouldn't. So what? You don't need to do that.
Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you'd go bankrupt. Can't say I'm sad about that outcome. Businesses that are only viable if they can violate people's rights don't deserve to exist.
No it isn't hard to comprehend but it isn't relevant here. Privacy doesn't mean no ads and nobody is preventing facebook to require users to pay a fee.
It is similar to organs. It is illegal to sell/buy them. You can still freely give them away(donate them). Privacy is similar to that. You can't buy/sell it but you can freely give it away. In this situation Facebook seems to be trying to sell you your privacy.
It's not unreasonable for Meta/Facebook to ask for a subscription, if you don't want to be tracked, not that I'd trust them not to. The current fee is set either to avoid having people signup or because settings it at say cost + 10% would reveal that their ads actually doesn't generate that much profit. Meta makes a lot of money on Facebook, but only because of their scale. Individually each European user represents somewhere around €20 per year, ten times less than what Meta is asking. So for €25 you should get not only no tracking, you should get ad-free Facebook.
Meta will never tell us, but how much less would a user be worth without all the tracking?
Maybe a different explanation is that, sure, on average they make €20 per user per year... but the distribution of how much money they make is extremely lopsided, such as a power law. They want everyone using the platform--even the most unprofitable people--as the service only really makes sense if you can find and communicate with everyone on it... but the people who are most likely to be willing to randomly fork over a bunch of cash to not get tracked are the very kind of person who also are most likely to pay for stuff in general and so facebook in fact might be making 10x as much off these users than people who wouldn't pay for the service at any price?
That does sort of leave the whole business model with a problem where Facebook is an unnecessary middle man for customers who where willing to buy your product anyway. The more you think about it the weirder the model of ad supported services becomes. There is a set of service that is valuable, but not to an extend where we'd want to pay for it.
Each user that signs up to pay decreases the value of the ones who don’t because it lowers their number. If the price is reasonable and “too many” people sign up, they’re decreasing revenue on the other side. Plus, paying users have a bigger voice in general, in that they can stop paying and you’ll notice. Free users are easier to control as they’ll stick around and accept much more crap.
So in a way: going to a court the user has more chances of winning when they paid for a service than when using it freely, even if using it freely means they pay with their privacy, when there is a breach of the contract.
Not saying this is what Meta is doing but saying that in some cases it is better to give something away for free than to ask even 1 EUR for it.
That's not correct. Their ARPU in Europe is about $20 per quarter, not per year.
Old number is available here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/how-much-...
EDIT: Nevermind: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
Around €70 per year seems to be the new number, it has also been clarified that this is revenue, not profit, making it a pretty good indicator of how much Meta needs to charge for Facebook to turn a profit (about four times less than what they are actually charging).
The subscription really is priced in line with their ad revenue. It might not be priced in line with the value you're getting from Meta's apps, but it definitely isn't any kind of play to make it intentionally so expensive that nobody would buy it.
Any cheaper, and they'd be basically guaranteed to lose money by offering the subscriptions just due to adverse selection effects. (Frequent users are more likely to subscribe, but also will see more ads.)
Nobody said that. Now, you want to create a fundamental companies right to do whatever they want for revenue. They can't, they'll be shutdown one day, hopefully