4 ms·

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative. I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on. edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.

18pfsmt 9y ago
None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.
- ovao 9y ago
  What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm
- lakechfoma 9y ago
  It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress. Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > There should be a panel of non-partisan people And right there is where your plan fails.
    - lakechfoma 9y ago
      I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.
      - 18pfsmt 9y ago
        I really liked your first post and building a platform to enable such things is completely simple. Please don't take the cynical/self-defeating attitude. Promotion is not my strong suit. Be careful with people that want to be the watchers of the watchers without laying out clear principles ahead of time.
nopriorarrests 9y ago
>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability. Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to enter your credit card. At all.
- rootusrootus 9y ago
  If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends. The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly endless money thrown at them.
  - HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
    9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
      Especially when the alternative is "free"
    - rootusrootus 9y ago
      I agree. Like every other product in the world, I would base the price on what the local market supports. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would ever work, because I may value my privacy at more than a few bucks a month, but it's a near certainty that the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. They don't see the cost there, so they ignore it. By the time they ever realize what it was they gave up and for how little, it's too late.
  - 9y ago
dingaling 9y ago
> Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population That's how WhatsApp started to fund itself, I remember there being a nominal annual charge ( £1 ) for some users but not for all. There didn't seem to be any obvious rule as to who was pinged to pay-up, perhaps it really was random. But that was discontinued after they were acquired.
thedirt0115 9y ago
> can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? ... [some users] subsidize [others]. Absolutely! Github, Dropbox, etc, that's how tons of "freemium" companies work.

18pfsmt 9y ago

None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.

ovao 9y ago
What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm
lakechfoma 9y ago
It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress. Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > There should be a panel of non-partisan people And right there is where your plan fails.
  - lakechfoma 9y ago
    I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.
    - 18pfsmt 9y ago
      I really liked your first post and building a platform to enable such things is completely simple. Please don't take the cynical/self-defeating attitude. Promotion is not my strong suit. Be careful with people that want to be the watchers of the watchers without laying out clear principles ahead of time.

nopriorarrests 9y ago

>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability. Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to enter your credit card. At all.

rootusrootus 9y ago
If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends. The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly endless money thrown at them.
- HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
  9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    Especially when the alternative is "free"
  - rootusrootus 9y ago
    I agree. Like every other product in the world, I would base the price on what the local market supports. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would ever work, because I may value my privacy at more than a few bucks a month, but it's a near certainty that the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. They don't see the cost there, so they ignore it. By the time they ever realize what it was they gave up and for how little, it's too late.
- 9y ago

dingaling 9y ago

> Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population That's how WhatsApp started to fund itself, I remember there being a nominal annual charge ( £1 ) for some users but not for all. There didn't seem to be any obvious rule as to who was pinged to pay-up, perhaps it really was random. But that was discontinued after they were acquired.

thedirt0115 9y ago

> can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? ... [some users] subsidize [others]. Absolutely! Github, Dropbox, etc, that's how tons of "freemium" companies work.