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 βI'm Ok with trackingβ button.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Europe
8488 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
erm...Cambridge Analytica?
Social media β social lives.
People need to remember this and not give their social lives to private companies.
Unfortunately, trans people and otherkin don't have much choice if they want to be safe in certain areas
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
unrelated, but why can't I see a single comment?
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
Suddenly Lemmy hosting costs seem really low...
In the case of Facebook, the average value of an active userβs 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) doesnβt impress me. Do you have anything more recent, preferably that sites sources, that you can share? Iβm 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 13β¬ 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.