5 ms·

> "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into

> "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates," he added. Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a voice than the average person, is another way to look at it. Facebook are profiting from both sides. They’re a news site that’s simultaneously FOX News and MSNBC all at once. But I still have to agree with Zuckerberg on this: enforcing misinformation shouldn’t be left to a private company.

freddie_mercury 7y ago
But a private company should enforce all the other things that Facebook has no problem moderating? Facebook has already said they have no problem enforcing this for non-politicians, after all.
- chrischen 7y ago
  They shouldn’t be enforcing most other content either, including nipples. Nipples are like Muslim face veils of the Western world.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Not all of the western world; IME the USA is much more prudish about nudity than Europe, for example.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.
- mrgreenfur 7y ago
  That is against the business model of building a ubiquitous profile on every one and selling that for ad targeting. This way he can sell each person over and over instead of making a measly $3.
  - ff317 7y ago
    Yeah but there's still a point to be made here. Maybe the amount is closer to $10/month instead of $3/year, which is still pretty cheap considering the social utility and "entertainment" hours people are getting out of the service. Also, maybe the costs of running facebook's infrastructure and code drop (and employee headcount, etc) off dramatically if they take an axe to all the parts of it that are devoted to advertising and user data tracking/sales and just focus on the useful core tech bits, which also helps increase the profit margin on the new income model. It's possible there's a rational price that the masses would pay that would still turn them a profit under this kind of setup.
    - nidificate 7y ago
      How many people would be willing to pay $10/month for something that they currently get for free?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cj 7y ago
  $3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr. Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year. Globally, the average is over $6. I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually the exact people advertisers want to target when trying to sell stuff). [0] 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...
seagull 7y ago
> Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a voice than the average person, is another way to look at it. The rich and powerful already have exponentially more of a voice than the average person -- media corporations are privately owned, after all, and no one is suggesting that we prevent them from making political statements. Banning political advertising is basically saying that people or groups with thousands or millions of dollars to spend shouldn't be able to get their message out -- only billionaires should be able to do that.

freddie_mercury 7y ago

But a private company should enforce all the other things that Facebook has no problem moderating? Facebook has already said they have no problem enforcing this for non-politicians, after all.

chrischen 7y ago
They shouldn’t be enforcing most other content either, including nipples. Nipples are like Muslim face veils of the Western world.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Not all of the western world; IME the USA is much more prudish about nudity than Europe, for example.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.

mrgreenfur 7y ago
That is against the business model of building a ubiquitous profile on every one and selling that for ad targeting. This way he can sell each person over and over instead of making a measly $3.
- ff317 7y ago
  Yeah but there's still a point to be made here. Maybe the amount is closer to $10/month instead of $3/year, which is still pretty cheap considering the social utility and "entertainment" hours people are getting out of the service. Also, maybe the costs of running facebook's infrastructure and code drop (and employee headcount, etc) off dramatically if they take an axe to all the parts of it that are devoted to advertising and user data tracking/sales and just focus on the useful core tech bits, which also helps increase the profit margin on the new income model. It's possible there's a rational price that the masses would pay that would still turn them a profit under this kind of setup.
  - nidificate 7y ago
    How many people would be willing to pay $10/month for something that they currently get for free?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cj 7y ago
$3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr. Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year. Globally, the average is over $6. I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually the exact people advertisers want to target when trying to sell stuff). [0] 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...

seagull 7y ago

> Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a voice than the average person, is another way to look at it. The rich and powerful already have exponentially more of a voice than the average person -- media corporations are privately owned, after all, and no one is suggesting that we prevent them from making political statements. Banning political advertising is basically saying that people or groups with thousands or millions of dollars to spend shouldn't be able to get their message out -- only billionaires should be able to do that.