3 ms·

I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (

I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. The problem is that the force of marketing is invisible. Even people who are resistant to targeted advertising are at least susceptible to indirect advertising through peer pressure from their friends... If all your friends do something, you will probably start doing it too - Or else, over time, they might stop being friends with you. I don't use Facebook much and so I rarely see their ads but I can clearly feel the effects of Facebook's advertising in my life through my personal and professional relationships.

wtbob 10y ago
> If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. But which Facebook would that be? Would it be the personal-page Facebook or the News Feed Facebook or the Facebook of Tomorrow? It's obvious that a State could build a Facebook clone, but is there any evidence that it could innovate well? Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide someone some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense of self-importance.
- type0 10y ago
  > Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide someone some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense of self-importance. Imagine the future where Statebook would provide this invaluable service to vote online and do your taxes when Zuck becomes a successful politician.