Awful to see our personal privacy and social lives being ransomed like this. €10 seems like a price gouge for a social media site, and I’m even seeing a price tag of 150SEK (~€15) In Sweden.
Awful to see our personal privacy and social lives being ransomed like this. €10 seems like a price gouge for a social media site, and I’m even seeing a price tag of 150SEK (~€15) In Sweden.
Price is a thing, but having the option to chose is definitely good.
Now comes the real question: do you really trust the Zuck to implement a “do not share/sell anything” policy ? 'Cause yeah, if I’m paying, I’m expecting that none of my data is being sold/processed/transmitted to another company. Paying to just remove ads is … pointless.
The thing is, there’s no “we’ll show you generic ads with no tracking” option. It’s accept being tracked or pay (two shitty options).
It seems that companies can’t do ads nowadays unless it’s targeted ads, and that makes you think it’s not ads what gives money, but selling your data. To whom? For what ends? You’ll never know. And that’s the problem.
So, the options given are unacceptable. The only reasonable option is to download your data and close the account.
It’s worth noting that the advertising industry never has had a concept of an untargetted advert. They have always had some marker to target their distribution; be that geographical placement of a billboard, the typical social status of a newspaper’s readership, or the target audience for a tv programme they run ads in. Truly untargetted ads would be effectively useless to an advertiser; nobody in Kolkatta is buying the new American Swiss Cheese from Danone; and nobody in Middle England is buying Japanese tentacle sex toys.
Distribution channel (i.e. a site’s core purpose) is the last untargetted target option; sell sex stuff on porn sites, games stuff on games sites etc. However, when your platform is for everyone, does everything, hosts any kind of content, you have nothing to use.
It is my opinion that the best solution for the average user is to ban cross-site tracking and scraping, but allow content and interaction based advertising within the site. If someone posts on a bunch of maternity groups, advertise them pumps etc. but someone searching that on Google should have the reasonable expectation that clicking on maternitytips.co.nz won’t mean their Facebook feed is full of pumps. I think for most people, that level of profiling is acceptable and, crucially, understandable. They can understand how the data footprint they create impacts what they see. Which is far less intrusive.
That said, Facebook can burn, I left it nearly ten years ago and wouldn’t dream of returning.
Traditional advertising has worked perfectly fine for centuries. In the last 10 years technology has advanced to the point where dragnet surveillance is cheap, and suddenly all the advertisers are chomping at the bit to overpay for “targeted” advertising. Most ads are still only sold based on geographic region, and “demographic data” is proving to be completely useless. Your average social media user will see ads that are completely unrelated to their actual interests.
At best, maybe a “targeted” ad is worth twice as much as a normal ad, but is that worth the hundreds of billions of dollars spent developing that technology, and the loss of privacy for billions of people?
My point I suppose is that traditional advertising hasn’t operated with out a context on which to show ads. There has always been some context, some manner to target an advert at consumers to whom it might be most relevant. The idea that advertisers should see value in an untargetted ad because that’s historically what they bought is wrong, because that’s not something they ever historically bought. So my point boils down to the idea that some sort of targeting has to occur for there to be value in the advertising; and given these are adrev funded platforms, they’ll need that value to exist - however that the scope and scale of data collection is wildly disproportionate to the needs of creating audiences.
The processes by which a user can guard themselves is simply too opaque; the average user can control what they show a platform intentionally (through likes, interactions etc.) but has no concept of how to protect themselves against some cookie farm bullshit selling Facebook the contents of their last three trips to Asda.com. We have three viable options;
Why can’t you use the content of the page to decide what ads to show? If there’s a Reddit thread discussing games, show gaming ads in that thread and kitchen ads in the threads about cooking. If your front page on Twitter happens to have multiple people writing about traveling, show travel ads. You don’t need to know anything about the users to advertise based on content.
Yes, I know there’s always been some sort of targeting in ads, but in the past it was mostly generic targeting, and you were targeted as part of a group, not individually. The thing is: I guess people would be ok if some generic data is collected (like general interests -as long as you can manage it-, and in the case of personal information, your birth year, at most). But I personally am not ok with them reading everything I write (including private conversations), check every interaction, even analyzing pictures content with AI, or buying information from other sources and cross-checking it, for example. It’s extremely invasive. They’ve been too greedy with acquiring information, and some people are reacting negatively to it.
I also completely dislike algorithmic content. I don’t need the platform guessing what I like to try to keep me in there by offering me content I didn’t ask for. I’m absolutely ok with a timeline, and just looking at the content from people I follow (I even don’t like re-posted content, but I think I’m in the minority there). I don’t need Social Media to “entertain me” in any capacity. So, that’s another factor to leave these sites. They’re constantly trying to hook you, lure you into spending time on their sites. No, thank you, but no.
My FB account was also closed a long time ago. They had too much information about me, and clearly showed they couldn’t be trusted. Instagram, in my case, was less personal, but still, AI has advanced a lot, and they can now probably understand what’s in the pictures people upload. So, it’s time to leave that too. I also closed my Reddit account. And My Twitter account is just a placeholder without info. Right now, I’m just using Mastodon, Lemmy and Pixelfed. I won’t go back to corporate social media.
They won’t stop tracking you. They’ll just not show you ads. They can still track amdnusr the data though to customise your feed according to your data.
I’ve uninstalled the apps.
Also the price is pr account. It’s not a reasonable price but they don’t want you to pick that option anyway
Absolutely. I’ll go the same route. I’ll put a message informing of my departure for my contacts for a while, and urging people to switch to Mastodon, and then close my personal account on Instagram (I closed my Facebook account a long time ago). I encouraged my son to download Mastodon too, and tell his friends to do the same. I hope they end up switching with time.
I have an account for some projects (business account) that I don’t care if it’s being tracked, as I put no personal information there. I’ll keep that as long as it’s useful. But I hope I can close it eventually, if people switch to Mastodon. We’ll see.
I mean I would argue that the important choice - not use FB/Instagram at all - isn’t an option for most people. People’s lives depend on this software, a lot of people would have a really hard time connecting with friends or participating in community organizations without access to Meta’s locked-in user base.
This is why the option to pay for your own privacy rights is a false choice, and why these gatekeepers need stricter regulation from the EU. These companies make billions in profits from their monopoly positions and privacy rights abuses.
Honest question:
If you feel these tools are essential and there are no other options (not sure I agree, but that seems to be the argument you were making; let me know if I am wrong), what is the alternative?
These things take money to keep the infrastructure running, pay staff, patch security vulnerabilities, and bring new features for those same communities to use. And they are also a public company, which means they have a legal responsibility to return money to shareholders.
I’m not defending Meta, I refuse to use their platforms and will not be buying any of their hardware. But if it takes money to keep the lights on (at a minimum), how does offering ads or a subscription equate to a false choice?
Those are good questions. I definitely think people should be paid for their labor and that companies should be paid for their goods and services. In most situations, I even think that they should be able to freely set their own prices, and sell ads.
However, I do not think that they should be able to use someone’s personal data unless they freely consent to it, or it is a direct consequence of the type of service they are providing. Selling ad space to a third party does not count.
The other exception to this philosophy are monopolies. Monopolies have exceptional power to abuse their consumers and should have limits on their ability to price gouge, among other things. Facebook and Instagram are monopolies, and there is no alternative to the platform that they control. There are plenty of competitors, but even if a competitor like Friendica or PixelFed can out-compete Meta on features, price, and quality, it is impossible for them to compete when it comes to having a platform with 1 billion locked-in users. This applies on both a local level, a persons’ friends may only be active users of Facebook, and nothing else; As well on a national level, Platforms like Mastodon have to fight an uphill battle when Meta can leverage their user base to make Threads leapfrog Mastodon.
It does not cost Meta €10-€15 a user to run FB or Instagram. Nor do they even make that much in revenue from ads, personalized or otherwise. It’s pure, monopolistic, price gouging to look good to the regulators.
I pay $20/month to support Lemmy’s development. I would honestly be happy to pay the same to Pixelfed. As it is right now, I will probably pay the €25 that Meta will gouge me for to preserve my privacy rights across my various Meta accounts. I have no other choice, 80% of my social life would vanish if I lost all the connections and event feeds that I have manually added to FB and Instagram.
the fact I don’t trust this lizardman any farther than I could toss him is the reason I took it as an opportunity to say goodbye to anything Meta-related.
I haven’t trust him and his “company” before, I won’t start with it now and throw money at him
100% this. I’d argue though, that the price point is fair. In 2018, Facebook earned an average of roughly $110 in ad revenue per American user according to this article.
The price might be fair for american users. The average european user makes Facebook about $60 per year. Sorce: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/
That’s super interesting. So ads are possibly only half as effective in Europe?
That’s impressive that customers pay that much to advertise on Facebook if true. that’s an average CPM of like $50. (5 cents per ad view)
At the same time, that article also claims that personalized ads are only worth 2x as much as regular ads, so that implies that FB/Instagram users should have the option to pay $5/month for ads without data tracking. I doubt that personalized ads are actually worth that much, but still.
They’ll sell your data up until you pay, right? So if I’ve had an account for 15 years, and then start paying, my 15 years of data is still at their disposal.