4 ms·

I wish they offered that option. I'd sign up for ad free FB for $2-$3 a month if it made it easy to set retention periods on my data and opt out of the collect

I wish they offered that option. I'd sign up for ad free FB for $2-$3 a month if it made it easy to set retention periods on my data and opt out of the collection.

askafriend 8y ago
Facebook made $118 per user in North America in 2018. So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now.
- onion2k 8y ago
  That's the average. They definitely didn't make that much from my account that I log in to 5 or 6 times a year.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    You don't have to log in to the blue Facebook app for them to make money. https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/ https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/
- munk-a 8y ago
  That sounds fine by me - in compensation for the lost revenue they would gain a bunch of public good will and lose some risk for a repeat of cambridge analytica. Also that seems way way up since in 2017 they made only 6.18$ in Q4[1]... so who's suddenly paying so much money for our user data? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-arpu.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
  - jay_kyburz 8y ago
    That is for a quarter, so $2 a month or $24 on the annual plan. One day I'm going to build this premium Facebook clone that respects user privacy! Come on Hacker News, make it so I don't have to!
    - GoblinSlayer 8y ago
      dreamwidth.org
  - askafriend 8y ago
    The number you're referencing is for 1 quarter and is looking at a blended global average which is brought down by extremely long term investments in places like Africa. I cited a number that is annual and is looking at North American revenue which is an indicator of mature market potential.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  So I assume that's across all properties. Would I pay $10/month for Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram? Probably.
- mjevans 8y ago
  Also, the users that COULD pay (any price) are likely the PRECISE ones that are most lucrative to target.
- Marsymars 8y ago
  "So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now." I block ads on Facebook web and don't have any of their mobile apps installed, so I can't imagine they're making more money from me than if I paid them to not have any ads.
  - dspillett 8y ago
    They don't just make money from you by directly showing your ads, so don't make zero $ if you as an individual manage to block all their ads. They make money by being able to target ads, not just from simply showing them, so all the data they have about you, and your links to other people, and correlations that can be derived from all that, and so forth, all feed in to that earning potential. You might not be seeing the resulting adverts, but can you say that about all your direct contacts, and all the people in groups you are linked to, and all the other people who interact with posts & events you comment on or otherwise interact with, and all the people that...? You are still very much part of their income model by being part of the data graph - you are not breaking the system remotely as much as you think by arranging not to see adverts. Letting people pay to not see ads would require both initial and on-going development & testing effort so you have to include that in any cost/benefit analysis of the situation too. And that design & development could be pretty complex: by making a legitimate ad skipping option available they risk creating a hacking opportunity that makes it easier for people to skip them without paying. It might also send a bad signal to the advertisers: people with more disposable income are more likely to pay to skip the adverts, because the cost will feel less to them, and people with more disposable income are usually those that the advertisers usually most want to reach.
    - Marsymars 8y ago
      I expect any model where fb allowed payment for an ad-free experience would still involve them doing all that targeting for others with my data anyway. That advertisers might want to reach me isn't especially relevant, because there's no situation under which that is a possible outcome for fb.
      - 8y ago
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago
  They will still monetize network effect and monopoly status, which paying users will still contribute to.
return1 8y ago
would most of your family & friends also do that? Because it doesnt matter if you opt out from targeting , if they can infer everything about you from your friends.
musicale 8y ago
It's amazing that it has come to this, but I'd consider paying a fee to eliminate all internet-based advertising and tracking. Even if it just applied to the worst offenders (Facebook, Google, Amazon...) it might be worth it. Such a system could be easily abused, however, without some kind of bulletproof third-party auditing in place. If Google offered an ad-free, tracking-free version of all of their services (maps, gmail, search, docs, youtube, etc.) I might even consider using it.
- fooker 8y ago
  >If Google offered an ad-free, tracking-free version of all of their services Gsuite?
- dontblink 8y ago
  Spoiler alert: they do for many of their services. GSuite, YouTube premium, etc
- rchaud 8y ago
  > but I'd consider paying a fee to eliminate all internet-based advertising and tracking. It's too late for that, I'm afraid. Google and the others have invested billions in their ad products and made back many more billions. It wouldn't make any sense for them to offer any kind of paid opt-out. And even if you didn't use any Google services, they already have reams of data on you based on your correspondence with anyone with a Gmail account, plus whatever data they can buy off your carrier network and your credit card provider.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Why not? Their per-human revenue is in the single-digit dollars. If I pay $10, they're ahead of the game. Netflix etc do it with premium services etc

I wish they offered that option. I'd sign up for ad free FB for $2-$3 a month if it made it easy to set retention periods on my data and opt out of the collection.

askafriend 8y ago

Facebook made $118 per user in North America in 2018. So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now.

onion2k 8y ago
That's the average. They definitely didn't make that much from my account that I log in to 5 or 6 times a year.
- askafriend 8y ago
  You don't have to log in to the blue Facebook app for them to make money. https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/ https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/
munk-a 8y ago
That sounds fine by me - in compensation for the lost revenue they would gain a bunch of public good will and lose some risk for a repeat of cambridge analytica. Also that seems way way up since in 2017 they made only 6.18$ in Q4[1]... so who's suddenly paying so much money for our user data? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-arpu.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
- jay_kyburz 8y ago
  That is for a quarter, so $2 a month or $24 on the annual plan. One day I'm going to build this premium Facebook clone that respects user privacy! Come on Hacker News, make it so I don't have to!
  - GoblinSlayer 8y ago
    dreamwidth.org
- askafriend 8y ago
  The number you're referencing is for 1 quarter and is looking at a blended global average which is brought down by extremely long term investments in places like Africa. I cited a number that is annual and is looking at North American revenue which is an indicator of mature market potential.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
So I assume that's across all properties. Would I pay $10/month for Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram? Probably.
mjevans 8y ago
Also, the users that COULD pay (any price) are likely the PRECISE ones that are most lucrative to target.
Marsymars 8y ago
"So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now." I block ads on Facebook web and don't have any of their mobile apps installed, so I can't imagine they're making more money from me than if I paid them to not have any ads.
- dspillett 8y ago
  They don't just make money from you by directly showing your ads, so don't make zero $ if you as an individual manage to block all their ads. They make money by being able to target ads, not just from simply showing them, so all the data they have about you, and your links to other people, and correlations that can be derived from all that, and so forth, all feed in to that earning potential. You might not be seeing the resulting adverts, but can you say that about all your direct contacts, and all the people in groups you are linked to, and all the other people who interact with posts & events you comment on or otherwise interact with, and all the people that...? You are still very much part of their income model by being part of the data graph - you are not breaking the system remotely as much as you think by arranging not to see adverts. Letting people pay to not see ads would require both initial and on-going development & testing effort so you have to include that in any cost/benefit analysis of the situation too. And that design & development could be pretty complex: by making a legitimate ad skipping option available they risk creating a hacking opportunity that makes it easier for people to skip them without paying. It might also send a bad signal to the advertisers: people with more disposable income are more likely to pay to skip the adverts, because the cost will feel less to them, and people with more disposable income are usually those that the advertisers usually most want to reach.
  - Marsymars 8y ago
    I expect any model where fb allowed payment for an ad-free experience would still involve them doing all that targeting for others with my data anyway. That advertisers might want to reach me isn't especially relevant, because there's no situation under which that is a possible outcome for fb.
    - 8y ago
GoblinSlayer 8y ago
They will still monetize network effect and monopoly status, which paying users will still contribute to.

return1 8y ago

would most of your family & friends also do that? Because it doesnt matter if you opt out from targeting , if they can infer everything about you from your friends.

musicale 8y ago

It's amazing that it has come to this, but I'd consider paying a fee to eliminate all internet-based advertising and tracking. Even if it just applied to the worst offenders (Facebook, Google, Amazon...) it might be worth it. Such a system could be easily abused, however, without some kind of bulletproof third-party auditing in place. If Google offered an ad-free, tracking-free version of all of their services (maps, gmail, search, docs, youtube, etc.) I might even consider using it.

fooker 8y ago
>If Google offered an ad-free, tracking-free version of all of their services Gsuite?
dontblink 8y ago
Spoiler alert: they do for many of their services. GSuite, YouTube premium, etc
rchaud 8y ago
> but I'd consider paying a fee to eliminate all internet-based advertising and tracking. It's too late for that, I'm afraid. Google and the others have invested billions in their ad products and made back many more billions. It wouldn't make any sense for them to offer any kind of paid opt-out. And even if you didn't use any Google services, they already have reams of data on you based on your correspondence with anyone with a Gmail account, plus whatever data they can buy off your carrier network and your credit card provider.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Why not? Their per-human revenue is in the single-digit dollars. If I pay $10, they're ahead of the game. Netflix etc do it with premium services etc