This is one of the most interesting and fundementals dillams happening. Meta absolutely depends on being able to deliver targted ads towards users, it is a must for that business model.
So in the end it seems fair to ask users either to pay for the service costs, or accept the directed advertising.
What is even more interesting is what other ways this could work? How can a platform - in general, not just meta - provide a “free” service, without monetizing it with targeted advertising?
Are we going to have to get all users to pay for every little service we use? Are we willing to do that to avoid advertising? To avoiding targeting?
This outcome of this will be a lot more important than most people realise.
I’m not so sure that hyper targeted ads based on a ton of granular data about me is a requisite for modern business not to collapse in on itself.
Advertisers made do just fine for quite a long time only being able to target the sort of people that would probably be consuming a given magazine or TV show. Ok so this is an auto enthusiast magazine, so lets advertise auto parts. This is a parenting magazine so advertise baby stuff. Etc. Same thing can be done online.
They don’t need to have a creepy level of information about us and if they do their business model maybe doesn’t deserve to stay afloat.
I think there is a key distinction here: providing ads is fine, but tracking users and sending them targeted ads requires explicit consent. Forcing them to consent to giving up that privacy or else paying is not a fair choice. It’s not even financially fair either as meta is apparently making 80usd a year per user.
Why not give a choice to a user to get ads but not being tracked and not getting targeted advertisements? Where is that option?
When you pay meta, do they comit to stop tracking you or only stop showing you target ads? Because I certainly care about the tracking part and giving users the false sense of privacy because they pay is so disingenuous…
Meta depends on free collection of user data. That data has value, their entire business model relies on not paying users fairly for the value they take.
You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. We should be paid, not the other way around.
I mean, worst case Facebook disappears or become a pay only service. I am 100% ok with that, it has been proven times and times again that society, children, young adults, older adults, democracies would be far better off without it.
This is one of the most interesting and fundementals dillams happening. Meta absolutely depends on being able to deliver targted ads towards users, it is a must for that business model.
So in the end it seems fair to ask users either to pay for the service costs, or accept the directed advertising.
What is even more interesting is what other ways this could work? How can a platform - in general, not just meta - provide a “free” service, without monetizing it with targeted advertising?
Are we going to have to get all users to pay for every little service we use? Are we willing to do that to avoid advertising? To avoiding targeting?
This outcome of this will be a lot more important than most people realise.
I’m not so sure that hyper targeted ads based on a ton of granular data about me is a requisite for modern business not to collapse in on itself.
Advertisers made do just fine for quite a long time only being able to target the sort of people that would probably be consuming a given magazine or TV show. Ok so this is an auto enthusiast magazine, so lets advertise auto parts. This is a parenting magazine so advertise baby stuff. Etc. Same thing can be done online.
They don’t need to have a creepy level of information about us and if they do their business model maybe doesn’t deserve to stay afloat.
One option would be contextual advertising, rather than advertising based on tracking the user.
(Contextual, as in: if you’re looking at a Formula 1 community, you might be interested in car-related products.)
Yep and contextual advertising has worked pretty much since advertising has been a thing.
I think there is a key distinction here: providing ads is fine, but tracking users and sending them targeted ads requires explicit consent. Forcing them to consent to giving up that privacy or else paying is not a fair choice. It’s not even financially fair either as meta is apparently making 80usd a year per user.
Why not give a choice to a user to get ads but not being tracked and not getting targeted advertisements? Where is that option?
When you pay meta, do they comit to stop tracking you or only stop showing you target ads? Because I certainly care about the tracking part and giving users the false sense of privacy because they pay is so disingenuous…
Meta depends on free collection of user data. That data has value, their entire business model relies on not paying users fairly for the value they take.
You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. We should be paid, not the other way around.
I mean, worst case Facebook disappears or become a pay only service. I am 100% ok with that, it has been proven times and times again that society, children, young adults, older adults, democracies would be far better off without it.
By asking to pay a sum they are practically pricing out your data, which you are basically selling. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
Definitely
I explained my opinion here, but they can even pay the user and keep their business going.
Login-wall. But what’s that? I can use a Google or Facebook account! Yay!
Just a link to my comment in this thread, sorry. Not something so important but I think they should pay instead.
No worries. I just thought it funny.
They just charge waaaay more than they would get from advertising