3 ms·
Yes, they should. FB doesn't want to get taxed? Create a non-tracking version and paywall it, I would actually pay for that myself.
by jbigelow76 7y ago
Yes, they should. FB doesn't want to get taxed? Create a non-tracking version and paywall it, I would actually pay for that myself.
- dahfizz 7y agoYou and maybe a dozen other people. Social media is worthless without widespread adoption.
- Qwertystop 7y agoIt could potentially share the backend -- track only those people who are on the free version, but keep everyone on one network. Also, no. Social media existed before the current big general-purpose networks. See Usenet, email lists, IRC, forums, etc. A single big network with no particular purpose or common interest provides different benefits, better in some ways and worse in others, but niche networks still have their own worth.
- jbigelow76 7y agoI should have expanded more on your original reply in my parent response but rather than editing it I'll continue it here. You said: Or do you expect these companies would continue to operate in the EU with no net profit. A tax doesn't have to eat up all the net profit. Googling "how much is a Facebook user worth" comes back with about $158 dollars, whether that's accurate or not is beside the point, some value can be derived[1], France can say "we want a X% tax on that value". If the tax is too high FB leaves the market and France gets nothing so there is little incentive to do that[2]. FB then has to take the cost of servicing a user against their value minus the tax and decide if they want to continue as is, offer a paywall option to avoid the tax, or leave the market altogether... I don't understand why this would be so controversial? [1] Whether FB or regulators should set that value is up for discussion. [2] Some would see FB as such an overwhelming societal net negative they would want to tax it out of existence, but that could be true for any industry (fossil fuels, tobacco , meat, etc...)