Meta pitches EU to charge a $10 subscription for ad-free Facebook and Instagram

https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-floats-charging-14-a-month-for-ad-free-instagram-or-facebook-5dbaf4d5

by rasbt • 3 years ago

41 70 3 years ago

aurareturn• 3 years ago

I actually don't have problems with ads. Never did. I think the ad-driven business model was better for the internet since most services/information sites were free. Now most things are locked behind paywalls.

Ajay-p• 3 years ago

Mine is a love hate relationship. Social media is not worth the value to pay for it, and I use every means necessary to block and ignore ads. However, even if I pay to stop the ads the website will still collect and sell my personal data. Further, it has been demonstrated by Prime, Hulu, and others, that even if you pay that still does not stop them from inserting advertisements in the future.

EGreg3• 3 years ago

Just because you pay doesn’t mean you aren’t the product.

candiodari2• 3 years ago

THIS is the problem. Software, from games to business applications has the general problem that people don't consider it worth what it costs to produce. Most "tech" companies can't exist, and certainly cannot be the size they are, based on paying customers.

If you look at even very cheap providers like fastmail or protonmail, who provide a decent subset of office products online for a subscription fee ... they're <100 people companies, and not for lack of trying to grow.

coldpie2• 3 years ago

I also don't have a problem with ads. I have a problem with big businesses tracking every piece of data they can about every individual, selling that data to anyone who asks, and manipulating what they show to their users to achieve the highest ad impressions.

deafpolygon2• 3 years ago

Yes, and I have a problem with them double-dipping. Charging for an ad-free experience, and still selling my data to the highest bidder.

daitangio• 3 years ago

Yeah this is the problem, and paying for the exact same ad-free service does not seem a solution to me.

monetus5• 3 years ago

Meta isn't securus thankfully. Someone really ought to go after those bottom feeding monstrosities who actually sell your data.

b1122• 3 years ago

If you adblock, you have a problem with ads.

Do you?

(And if you don't, I bet many who claim as you have, do)

baby5• 3 years ago

You can’t adblock on iphones :(

pgeorgi2• 3 years ago

"Do you have adblock set up to filter ads only, or do you have it set to also filter all kinds of other trackers?" would be the more accurate question.

baby5• 3 years ago

Have you tried watching youtube without a subscription lately?

CSMastermind• 3 years ago

My friend does this and it was genuinely jarring when I was watching with them.

xinayder• 3 years ago

Have you tried using an ad blocker on youtube?

kibwen• 3 years ago

I have a problem with ads. They are a race to the bottom of psychological manipulation where the ultimate goal is to manufacture discontent in the general populace, thereby inducing artificial demand to drive consumption. In other words, invent a product that solves a problem that does not exist, then fool people into thinking they have that problem, then sell them the solution to their fake problem, thereby making them poorer for no actual benefit.

Viewing ads is atrocious mental hygiene, in the same way that eating a meal after dipping your hands in feces is poor physical hygiene.

EGreg3• 3 years ago

Yep that’s right. I’ve been saying that for years. Ads are in a race to the bottom, it is a tragedy of the unmanaged commons and the commons is human attention.

In most “socialist” countries, ads did not intrude in your life.

But actually, it is worse than just ads. Capitalism can harm freedom of speech, and for-profit online platforms shape it in such a way that society gets more and more polarized and depressed.

Record levels of depression and sadness in teenage girls

One fifth of middle aged women on antidepressants

There are solutions, but they involve different economics:

https://rational.app

If anyone wants to get involved — feel free to email me.

I did a couple interviews with Noam Chomsky on this subject:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo

https://community.qbix.com/t/freedom-of-speech-and-capitalis...

And also David Harvey and Thomas Greco:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ezf7wxJ7whA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ax6iHAG3lx4

awesomeMilou2• 3 years ago

Article is behind a paywall.

Going from the title: How took it Meta this long to invent a reasonable offering for their EU market?

I'm not a Meta user, but I'd gladly pay a subscription for whatever online service offers me most.

b1122• 3 years ago

You may, but I doubt many will. Historical adoption trends seem to show this.

Vt71fcAqt7• 3 years ago

How took it Meta this long to invent a reasonable offering for their EU market?

Would you have read the article if it was free with ads and trackers? There's your answer. Few people will pay for this.

awesomeMilou2• 3 years ago

Actually yeah.

Actually actually: I'd be happy to pay for a subscription service to news in the same fashion I pay for Spotify. The only reason I don't go the extra mile to subscribe to their paid offerings is because every major news outlet is trying to get me to subscribe individually. Which means I need to track subscriptions individually.

I could manage subscriptions through Apple News, but I get a reduced offering when going through Apple.

Seriously, someone just invent Netflix for news subscriptions already.

Like no. Someone invent Spotify or Netflix for news/print already ffs.

strogonoff3• 3 years ago

The good thing about subscription fees is that you can choose and vote with your wallet.

If it means that platforms like Facebook start thinking about not losing paying users—as opposed to their current users, advertisers—then they just might start implementing features users want (like proper API or custom third-party clients that interoperate with other platforms—which would become completely fine once ads are off the table).

It’d be a gigantic paradigm shift—suddenly their product is their paying customer!—so it’s understandable that they would rather sit comfortably in the middle of the double-sided platform that demotes users to the role of cattle eyeballs and makes it impossible to leave, because no competitor can compete with a free offer.

However, if they do pull it off well, I have to admit I might actually sort of (never thought I’d write anything like that) applaud Facebook. I would also applaud EU for steering FB into that model—they could do much worse (such as require FB to stay free but regulate it to the T, like a cushy state-adjacent monopoly).

Sure, some people will not be willing to shell out 10 EUR monthly and leave—which is utterly fine because this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get healthy market with finally some competition.

monetus5• 3 years ago

No social media for the broke, in this scenario.

ZeroCool2u• 3 years ago

Here's a gift URL: https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-floats-charging-14-a-month-for...

deafpolygon2• 3 years ago

I'll be honest. If Meta decides to start charging subscription for any type of ad-free experience, I'm simply not going to use it. Because they're still going to be mining my data. And doing all kinds of shit with it. I only consent because I need to interact with certain people (read: family members) and not really because I want to be on that platform at all.

For some inexplicable reason, talking to me via WhatsApp just seems to be too much effort (and _that_'s still a Meta platform).

ethbr12• 3 years ago

The trick with this would be preventing it from being abused as an opt-in lever.

Aka 'Meta decides to charge a $199/month fee for ad-free Facebook and Instagram' (or free with ads)

baby5• 3 years ago

I’ve said it a long time ago, a lot of people would pay for it, it’s a no brainer.

Cerium• 3 years ago

Not 100 percent a no brainer. Paying customers are the customers that advertisers would like to address, and having pay and free where most people have a free account can easily gain an unfair pay to win feeling.

spacebanana7• 3 years ago

I also used to think this, but YouTube premium seems to satisfy Alphabet's accounting teams and shareholders despite having the same adverse selection problem.

bejd• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/nVivJ

nerdjon• 3 years ago

5 or 6 years ago when I was much more heavily using Facebook I would have loved for this to be a thing. I think it would have been a great addition and is something that should be encouraged. Hopefully transitioning more and more away from us being the product and what we are actually using being the product.

However there are 2 big issues with this.

I doubt that Facebook will stop mining us for data and continuing to view us as a product, just now with an additional revenue. For me that was always the bigger of the 2 issues, showing me ads was just the symptom.

The second is how else to they incentivize people to subscribe. Is enough ads enough? Probably not and that is the issue we are seeing with Twitter. Adding in extra features to incentivize subscribing that likely shouldn't be there.

soco• 3 years ago

The worries of the worried people (a minority) are not even about ads that much, but rather about the privacy violations - which are not even touched by this proposal.

xiphias2• 3 years ago

I'm paying for Youtube Premium and still feel like being the product: I can't turn off youtube shorts, and I can't see downvotes (both product decisions making sense for ad-based model).

Kibae• 3 years ago

Return Youtube Dislike [0] isn't perfect, but it's good enough for my use cases.

Unhook [1] lets you hide the shorts tab from the sidebar, but unfortunately doesn't (yet) filter shorts.

[0] https://returnyoutubedislike.com

[1] https://unhook.app/

boringg• 3 years ago

Ok but if you pay for the subscription fee does that mean they can't sell your data to other brokers or anyone else or does it simply stop ads from being served to you?

tjrgergw• 3 years ago

It doesn't matter what they "can" or "can't" do. They'll do it.

melx• 3 years ago

Exactly. They probably see their ads revenue is getting saturated by now, so a subscription model is a way to keep the revenue as the same level or higher.

bad_user6• 3 years ago

Meta is only offering this because the EU is forcing their hands to ask for consent without degrading service for those that refuse.

"Selling" user data isn't legal without a basis under GDPR and they don't have it. Also, Meta aren't stupid to give away their asset to others. Like Google, they don't actually sell user data, rather they provide an ads platform on which people can place bids. Which under GDPR is also unlawful, and Meta just found out about it.

Granted, you may believe that they'll engage in unlawful behavior anyway, but I'd say that they are a huge target, breaking records in fines which are only growing.

troupo2• 3 years ago

Meta just found out about it.

Well, they didn't just find about it, they knew about it from the very beginning and employed every trick in the book to weasel out of it.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/02/meta_eu_gdpr_advertis...

It is only after they got slapped with multiple costly fines this year that they now pretend to change their tune.

justrealist• 3 years ago

Facebook doesn't sell your data to brokers. In the US or EU. That's bottomfeeder crap.

FB advertising is a walled garden and they want advertisers to come to FB to buy ad space. They would never simply sell that data back out in to the broader ecosystem. It's not about charity, it's about control.

ppsreejith• 3 years ago

Meta doesn't sell your data to brokers. They sell access to your attention using ad slots. Advertisers upload their creatives to Meta and specify who they want to target.

ethbr12• 3 years ago

Exactly. It's important to be accurate.

Also, the business model allows Facebook and Google to talk about protecting your data... while also reaping the advantage of retaining sole access to that data.

By selling targeting only, advertisers are forced to buy again and again.

If they sold the underlying data, they'd be cheapening their own treasure.

nixass• 3 years ago

Potato potahto

code_runner• 3 years ago

I think the alternative is that creators/influencers do even more ad-content on their accounts... which ends up with non-paying users getting inundated with ads + ads baked into content. Only an issue if the subscription model gains traction I suppose.

Some businesses (spotify, pandora) would kill to have the success with ads that meta/facebook has had.... and I'm sure during the downturn at the beginning of the year metabook would've killed for the consistent subscription revenue... so really interesting to see where this goes.

pgeorgi2• 3 years ago

Because advertisers are only waiting to only get the eyeballs that can't pay their way out of the platform's ads.

Like cable TV, streaming services, and various other outlets this will be a "premium service" until they reintroduce ads for that premium tier.

cultureswitch• 3 years ago

The problem of serving ads that I block anyway isn't what bothers me the most when I use facebook (i.e. when I have to). The main problem is that meta tracks everything they can about me and keep it forever. And I can never trust that they won't do it, no matter the legislation.

mannykannot• 3 years ago

Does it come with a blue check mark?

bad_user6• 3 years ago

A lot of the comments here are missing the picture...

They may be trying such deals because they just found out that behavioral advertising is ilegal under GDPR without consent. And also, under GDPR, people should be able to decline without a degraded service. They first tried to place consent in the ToS, and failing that they tried declaring it a "legitimate interest". Except it isn't and a DPA ruled as such. "The cost of doing business" may become significant.

So they may be trying this deal because they are screwed in the EU, offering a subscription as an alternative. Except that this too will be deemed ilegal.

People saying that they'll sell that data anyway are missing the point: (1) they are not selling data because they aren't stupid, and (2) the EU is making their business model ilegal within the EU.

troupo2• 3 years ago

the EU is making their business model ilegal within the EU.

If the business model is built on and is unsustainable without pervasive and invasive tracking of people, no one should lose their sleep over it being illegal.

handelaar• 3 years ago

Lots of people here simply thinking it's a question of whether this is something you'd buy, as if the EU regulators are going to countenance this for so much as a femtosecond.

They will not, and the implied quid-pro-quo of "extreme ongoing privacy violation is what we get for not charging people" will make them more angry, not less, and is an _extremely_ dumb idea for them to be pushing in this context because it actually cements regulators' belief that Meta has no interest whatsoever in behaving itself.

The EU is not empowered to let Meta break the law. This is NOT a thing.

tiffanyh• 3 years ago

Credit Bureau

I wonder how much of Meta's problems would go away if they just became an official Bureau since it gets exclusions from Data Broker, etc. use cases.

6510• 3 years ago

This cant work because those who can afford this are the most valuable prospects.

matthewfelgate• 3 years ago

This is clever politics from Facebook.

Havoc• 3 years ago

Among my social circle FB is dead as can be. Basically no organic activity left in feed.

Insta still has a bit more life in it.

Meta pitches EU to charge a $10 subscription for ad-free Facebook and Instagram

Related Stories