- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The system seems to be;
- Add adverts
- Make them more intrusive
- Add more adverts
- Make them even more intrusive
- Everybody is fed up with adverts because there are now more adverts than content, so introduce paid version which costs more than the company would earn on ad impressions even for a heavy user, to remove ads
- Next step might be to add some ads to paid version?
Isn’t this exactly what Netflix is trying to do with their paid subscribers?
Netflix didn’t start with ads, and the ads don’t affect pre-existing subscription tiers.
… other than the fact that they cost more to ‘make room for’ the ad-supported service at and near the former price points.
Did some more research and Netflix did remove their “Basic” plan when they added the cheaper ad-supported tier. They also raised the prices of their other plans, but those increases were consistent historically, so I’m not convinced the addition of an ad-supported tier caused them.
For what it’s worth, Facebook didn’t have ads way back in the day
Uh, no. The system is:
- The law requires us to disable tracking by default for all users
- We can’t make hundreds of billions of dollars per year with tracking disabled
- So - make the service $14/month by default, unless you opt-in.
- It’s win/win. If users pay $14, they make huge profits. If users opt in to tracking, they make huge profits.
they don’t ‘win’ if europeans tell zuk to take a hike in sufficient numbers. decline the tracking for ‘free’ use and declining the paid option.
So basically decline to use Facebook? I’m skeptical. People will just opt in to the tracking, most people don’t care. Or maybe they’ll post on Facebook about how they don’t like it.
Even if they did and chose to go to some other platform, they’ll eventually run up against the same business model decisions.
The question is how it affects their numbers. When a company like Facebook misses growth (or, god forbid, actually shrinks) the market punishes them for it.
That said, Zuck is not Elon. I’m more confident FB has a plan and isn’t just shooting from the hip. They likely have a model for some shrinkage and decided on $14 because X% of users are expected to accept targeting, Y% will abandon the platform (or decrease engagement), and Z% will pay. I bet they picked a number that would make Z small but not non-existent.
Well yeah I guess I am just highly skeptical that it will meaningfully affect their numbers. By and large anyone who is still on Facebook either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about this (or some combo of both).
I’m just trying to imagine the person who didn’t know Facebook was tracking them, but now with this opt in will understand the ramifications of that and abandon the Facebook platform. It’s hard for me to see this being anything more than a rounding error on their numbers.
Next step might be to add some ads to paid version?
Yep:
Amazon is sticking ads in Prime Video shows and movies unless you pay more
we’ve been using prime video quite a bit here with our latest ‘trial’. the ux has degraded a lot since the last one we had. they’re pushing the paid shit (third-party subs, rentals, ‘purchases’) way too much on the ‘related’ and other lists and links. it’s gotten so bad, you need to use a third-party site just to find the ‘free with prime’ content, because amazon sure af ain’t gonna list it so you can find it easily.
- Next step might be to add some ads to paid version?
Yup. Add “a few” “unobtrusive” ads “relevant to your interests” to the $14 dollar tier while offering a new $18 ad-free tier.
I stopped using Facebook years and years ago when adblockers failed to stop FB ads. I have yet to find one that actually works.
When I took a look to see if it had improved, the feed wasn’t even chronological. I get posts from days ago on top and posts from hours ago buried pages in. The posts at the top of the feed are even ones I’ve seen before. FB has become entirely useless and only bother for the few groups that insist on using it.
traditional rules-based blockers like ublock origin fail because facebook randomizes tags and code on their pages specifically to prevent them from working well, or even at all.
fbpurity.com is designed for facebook.
Ads don’t particularly bother me but they do get tiresome when every other post is an ad. I don’t use FB though. YouTube ads are getting increasingly irritating - it seems that every two minutes during a video there will be an ad break, but I refuse to pay for a subscription for the small amount I use YouTube. I think there are some alternative interfaces which stop the ads but I keep forgetting to use/try them.
Try YouTube Revanced (requires modding APK) or LibreTube (available on F-Droid) if you’re on Android. Go with SmartTube on Android TV. Just use Firefox + uBlock Origin if watching YouTube on a computer.
Libretube is the one I installed!
Remember when their account signup page said “It’s free, and always will be”? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
it will still be, but with more ads and ‘suggested’ content, less vetting (do they even do that now?) of those paid placements (that costs money ya know), more data harvesting and selling, and continued randomization of tags and code that make traditional adblocking difficult.
deleted by creator
And includes YouTube Music.
For now.
The only reason I use YouTube Music is because it’s part of YouTube Premium. They just discontinued YouTube Premium Lite which allowed you to get ad free YouTube without YouTube Music. The only way they can make YouTube Music succeed and take away revenue from Spotify is if they bundle it in with ad free YouTube.
For now, sure. But corporations only bundle services to build their userbase. Once their service hits a critical mass (read: they think they can get away with it) they will break the bundle up and charge for each service individually. It’s an inherent feature of capitalism- corporations can’t leave any perceived money on the table. Why charge one price for two services, when you can charge two prices for two services? And they’ll couch it as “giving users more choice!” by noting you can only pay for one service without the other if you want- while conveniently ignoring the users who utilized both features would be paying more. Mark my words: YouTube Premium will not stay bundled with YouTube Music. At some point in the future, Google will charge for each service separately.
Well, assuming Google doesn’t randomly kill one of them off outright, that is.
The only reason I have YouTube Music and YouTube Premium is because I had Google Play Music ages ago, then they added YouTube Premium to it, and eventually closed down GPM in favour of YouTube Music. I’m still only paying $9 a month for it, so that’s something I guess. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Damn, I also had Google Play Music family account, which got transitioned to Youtube Music, but am paying the standard $23/month 💸
YT Premium is imo one of the most scammy subscriptions, as you can easily and legally get what it offers with free tools.
deleted by creator
Facebook still sell your data even if you pay to give it to them.
deleted by creator
If I had any confidence in this company, it might have been interesting. 🤔
I loath them with a passion. That said, I find the groups feature extremely valuable. THAT said, I will only access it through a browser, with numerous privacy protections.
So now you can voluntarily give your financial info in addition to the data they already leech. That too with a nominal monthly fee. Great!!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meta is preparing to charge EU users a $14 monthly subscription fee to access Instagram on their phones unless they allow the company to use their personal information for targeted ads.
Several social media platforms, which for years made all their features available for free, have recently begun to charge for extras, as their traditional ad businesses come under pressure from privacy regulations and marketers become more selective with their budgets.
Snapchat and X, formerly Twitter, also sell optional subscriptions offering paying users exclusive features, such as verified profiles, custom app themes and fewer ads.
The Silicon Valley-based company has until the end of November to comply with a Luxembourg court ruling from this year which found that Facebook “cannot justify” the use of personal data to target consumers with ads unless it gains their consent.
The Digital Markets Act, which comes into force in March, imposes new legal obligations on companies to share data with rivals to promote fair competition.
In May, Facebook, which is owned by Meta, was fined a record €1.2 billion for violating privacy laws that required appropriate safeguards of transfers of data from the EU to the US.
The original article contains 710 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So now people should pay to get their data sold to advertisers?
Brilliant.
hahahahahahahahaha
I’d pay a few bucks a month to get rid of ads—easily more than they make by showing me ads—but $14 is just absurd. It’s like they want this new program to fail.
This is why I use a modded version of Instagram that gets rid of ads
I’d pay that for a version of both apps from 10-15 years ago. Same with Twitter (would have to include banning Elon and trump)
I like the movement from ads to subscriptions. But no shot I’m paying for social media. But maybe I’m anti-social.
Zuck my cock, Meta.
