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;
- Leave Facebook et al unchecked.
- Ban the concept of targeting advertisements entirely, thus shutting down Facebook, Google, and most free services that the world depends on (because people are very unlikely to pay for these services in enough quantity to keep them running).
- Regulate the concept of targeting advertisements to be fair and equitable for both parties.
However, when your platform is for everyone, does everything, hosts any kind of content, you have nothing to use.
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.
This is a classic. Make the price high enough that nobody wants to pay it, but low enough that law enforcement doesn’t complain. Everybody will click on the „I’m Ok with tracking“ button.
And for those who pay, they will still probably sell their data to advertisers and hike the prices in 2-3 years.
They don’t sell the data. It is used by Facebook to identify you and your interests and advertisers then pay Facebook to use this information to target their desired audiences with relevant ads. The data stays with Facebook. It’s misleading to to say that they’re selling your data because that’s not exactly what’s happening. Advertiser has no use for the user data itself. Advertising platforms do.
They don’t sell the data, they sell access to the data and some other things they calculated from it. That’s just semantics at this point.
I don’t think it’s just semantics, when many people literally think they’re handing over your data to a third party, when that is not actually the case. That would be significantly more concerning than what they’re doing now, which already is concerning enough.
erm…Cambridge Analytica?
They didn’t sell that data either
True, they just pretty much gave them away
Social media ≠ social lives.
People need to remember this and not give their social lives to private companies.
Most of society doesn’t realize this yet, sadly.
Unfortunately, trans people and otherkin don’t have much choice if they want to be safe in certain areas
I agree. I’m myself part of a minority and social media are great to find a community and exchange with people of this community.
My comment was about the post speaking about Meta. My go to for a safe space is now Mastodon which I don’t consider as a company. We can always change instance or build our own. This is really different from other social media.
To provide a better point, I could answer to your comment from here. This is a huge difference between the closed Meta and federation.
You said social media isn’t social lives. I think Lemmy and Mastodon are still social media.
My first comment has two statements if not three. The first is about social media and social lives. And, we have to learn that these aren’t the same. They have different definitions and are two separate things.
The second is about private companies and that we don’t have to put our social lives in the hand of private companies. The article is about Meta.
Now, Lemmy and Mastodon are different as they are federate social media. They don’t follow the second statement but the first is still true. And people have to keep this in mind when they use Lemmy and Mastodon. They must differentiate between social media and lives. If people use these two, they only avoid the private companies.
Now, Lemmy and Mastodon is a ridiculous small fraction of social media users. The vast majority relies on private companies. And people put their social lives there. This is an issues.
I think forcing a differentiation between social media and social lives can be dangerous. I say this in the context of trans and otherkin people who use free social media. I think they are in the best position to judge their own safety individually.
You’re speaking about accessibility of the safe space. It’s easier to access a social media and use it as a safe space. But, it doesn’t opposite with the fact that social live and social media are different.
Safe space was a thing before the event of social media. Social media helps people discovering their differences and accepting these. This is access to the information and not social live. I didn’t write people have to avoid social media.
Before the wide spreading of the internet, people would move to a different town, will reach specific places for safe spaces. They were free or used networks and didn’t rely on private companies like Meta. This is a huge difference.
I think you’re ignoring me again. I said in the context of trans people who use free social media. Like the fediverse.
And yeah, we had ways of doing it before the internet. And they sucked. Fewer people knew they were queer, and they stayed closeted for longer. And their safe spaces could be raided by the police, and that’s how we got Stonewall. I like the internet better.
By “free social media”, did you mean “no-cost” or “unhindered”? Because in my experience, at least 95% of people are completely incapable of judging their own online safety (especially in regard to the “no-cost” social media sites) just from their lack of technical background knowledge. I do not see why any of the stated groups should be exempt from that?
otherkin
lol
Suddenly Lemmy hosting costs seem really low…
Lemmy isn’t a social network like Facebook though
There is Pixelfed, Mastodon, Firefish etc
Yeah, we don’t need to support greedy capitalists, and also all the extra stuff that comes with being an actual company.
But pixelfed is a social network like Instagram
In the case of Facebook, the average value of an active user’s data to Facebook is about $2 per months.
They shouldn’t be allowed to charge more than that.
Respectfully, an article from four years ago that I cannot read in full without creating an account, which seems to just reference a calculator from FT that is over a decade old at this point (whose sources I also cannot seem to find) doesn’t impress me. Do you have anything more recent, preferably that sites sources, that you can share? I’m genuinely interested in what data is actually worth
All valid points. Tbh I’m not on FB or any of meta’s services, and I don’t care about FB enough to put in more research time. I consider this a data point to start from.
Facebook should be required to show how a single set of a random user’s data actually means even close to 13€ a month of revenue for them. This is not a good they willingly put out on the market, this is an alternative the law forces them to give to people, and it should actually have to be equivalent.
The wording in the message was also “we won’t use your data for ads” - which I understood as that they will still track it…
They sure will! They basically just removed untargeted ads and replaced it with addfree subscription. Major loss for users
Instead of paying 10€/month for a desktop subscribtion you can also just use adblocker which does the exact same thing.
An ad blocker doesn’t prevent FB and Instagram internal tracking and usage of personal data, and they don’t work on the phone app.
Neither does the subscribtion
Fair enough.
deleted by creator
Is it a good news for alternative social media ?
I mean now that people have to pay to use facebook, wouldn’t they move to the fedi ?
Also do we want the racist uncle and the boomer memes on the fedi ?
You can still choose to use the “free” version where you have to accept all the cookies, trackers and I don’t know what else.
True, that part never changed. I’m not using any Facebook social networks, so it doesn’t affect me. But adding more options doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me, even though the price seems pretty steep.
Shit thing for me, I use it to reach guests and make announcements for the restaurant. Sucks but that’s where most people still get local information.
But you/they can still use the free, ad-supported tier like before. I don’t see any change to people who don’t pay.
It just added the option to get rid of ads and trackers in exchange for money.
“do we want the racist uncle and the boomer memes on the fedi ?”
The good thing about the fediverse is they can use an instance where their point of view or irrelevant content is accepted, and the rest don’t need to federate with them if they choose not to.
There are many instances where minorities are sheltered from bigotry and harassment isn’t tolerated. The fediverse can deal with these people without problems. It’s designed for it.
People don’t have to pay though. The general idea that I hear from most is, that by accepting, things will be as they habe always been. They don’t realise or seem to care thatbit has always been illegal
This isn’t really relevant for end users. It’s a monthly fee for companies and public organizations, so they can check the box on a separate set of AGB’s that technically satisfy their compliance requirements.
I can’t access Instagram unless I agree to the new rules so yes it does affect end users.
What happens to my data if I just leave it like that? Can facebook use it or not?
Instagram doesn’t let you continue unless you choose one of the options.
Same with Facebook, so if I don’t continue and just stop using it now, what about my data?
I assume they can’t use it without my explicit consent, but I don’t know.
Legally they can’t, in reality they probably do. Hell, already did since signing up.
I’ve no idea I haven’t gone back on but I’d like to download all my info and delete… Can’t get back in though. The access they want to your device is too much, they keep access even if you delete the app
unrelated, but why can’t I see a single comment?
Did you pay for them? It’s 12c per comment, or you can buy the whole thread for 70c
I noticed that a lot of comments don’t show up if you don’t set your language right in your lemmy settings. I just set it to N/A and also shift clicked on English, and it made a lot of invisible comments show up.
that actually did the trick. thank you so much
I’ve never used any of those media, but honestly; i would find it reasonable to pay IF they would not continue to track you and do all kinds of shady stuff. But now, basically some people will pay and still get their privacy invaded.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Facebook and Instagram users in the European Union will be charged up to €12.99 a month for ad-free versions of the social networks as a way to comply with the bloc’s data privacy rules, parent company Meta said on Monday.
The higher prices reflect commissions charged by the Apple and Google app stores on in-app payments, the company said in a blogpost.
The company’s main way of making money is to tailor ads for individual users based on their online interests and digital activity.
Under the EU’s Digital Markets Act legislation, Meta platforms will have to gain explicit consent before tracking a user for advertising purposes.
The paid option “balances the requirements of European regulators while giving users choice and allowing Meta to continue serving all people”, the company’s statement reads.
Users aged 18 and older in the EU’s 27 member countries, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein will still have the choice of continuing to use Facebook or Instagram with ads.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Glad i left meta a long time ago…
