4 ms·

Sure. But why not offer the option? Google offers me Gmail for $5/mo. Why won't they do that with search? Why won't FB or Twitter do the same? Ad-free google s

Sure. But why not offer the option? Google offers me Gmail for $5/mo. Why won't they do that with search? Why won't FB or Twitter do the same? Ad-free google search is easily worth >$28/yr and I'd gladly pay it. Given the enormous armies of engineers in the employ of Google, FB, Twitter, etc, and the fact that Google already offers paid services on non-search products, the ONLY explanation is malice.

meritt 7y ago
Because the price would be too high. $28/yr is the global per-user price but it's extremely skewed by region. The same equivalent price a US/CA user is $140/yr. Also the necessary 20% price increase every year would be really tough to convince people of the value. How about instead we just stop using Facebook? I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Because the price would be too high. What is the correct price? Do Facebook and other internet companies have some sort of a God given right to at least their current revenues? If so, why do I have to comply with a whole slew of laws and regulations that society has "decided" are better for the greater good, but we can't impose similar restrictions on them? > Also the necessary 20% price increase every year Lest the executives maybe make more money but a smaller profit margin? How about instead of spending resources on psychological exploitation of their userbase, they either cancel that expenditure or redirect it to adding beneficial features that users want to pay for? > How about instead we just stop using Facebook? If that can solve the problem, I'm happy to consider it. > I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit. And yet, we still seem to have a problem. Once again, an utterly obvious problem seems unfixable because of some combination of excessive corporate influence over politicians combined with a disinterested public who seems to have been convinced that humans live in a world whose parameters we have absolutely no control over, all while being told how superior, powerful, and necessary democracy is. Meanwhile, over in China, when something is causing problems, the problem maker is asked to stop, and if he doesn't, he is made to stop, or else. And from anything I've seen, the Chinese government seems to be improving the well being of their citizens at a rapid pace (in both relative and absolute terms), and they have high support from the public, despite the lack of absolutely necessary Democracy. Why is it that a bi-partisan group of politicians can't get together to come up with a plan to improve the situation, and while they're doing that telegraph to these social media companies that something is going to be done, possibly very much not to their liking, so it might be in their best interests to come up with a plan B of their own that is fundamentally different than the pure advertising model of the day? Of course, there are many reasons for this, one of them being that the political system in most Western countries is effectively broken and outdated, completely incapable of managing the complexities of the over-optimized societies that the scientists and technologists have built for us, while no corresponding discipline developed to handle important questions like whether just because we can do something, should we do it? As always, I imagine we will just continue the charade of pointing our fingers at each other and the Russians, fiddling while Rome burns, as China grows ever more powerful and socially united. I hope I at least live long enough to see how this will be explained away in the future as something that "no one" could see coming, just as "no one" could have seen the 2008 housing bubble coming.
  - rzmnzm 7y ago
    I do not think totalitarian dictatorship is the solution to ads on facebook.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Do you perceive that a totalitarian dictatorship is being proposed? Would you be willing to excerpt some particular quotes that you believe were most compelling in your formation of this perception?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit. Yes. I dropped it much earlier than that, and have suffered no inconvenience or problem as a result.
  - buboard 7y ago
    undestand though that for people who live in the poorest of regions , the ones who absolutely can't pay for it, facebook is free communication with their loved ones, often in another country. for most people that's what makes FB useful, not the constant political bickering
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Neither of you seem to be members of social groups that announce their goings-on on Facebook, because if you were you'd realize that missing out or getting your info from elsewhere is pretty damn inconvenient
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      That's not true for me. What is true is that I'm not a member of any social group that uses FB exclusively. I don't know of many that do that, because doing so excludes a lot of people.
celeritascelery 7y ago
The problem is that the most lucrative users to advertisers (lots of expendable income) are also the ones most likely to pay for the privilege of not using ads.

meritt 7y ago

Because the price would be too high. $28/yr is the global per-user price but it's extremely skewed by region. The same equivalent price a US/CA user is $140/yr. Also the necessary 20% price increase every year would be really tough to convince people of the value. How about instead we just stop using Facebook? I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit.

mistermann 7y ago
> Because the price would be too high. What is the correct price? Do Facebook and other internet companies have some sort of a God given right to at least their current revenues? If so, why do I have to comply with a whole slew of laws and regulations that society has "decided" are better for the greater good, but we can't impose similar restrictions on them? > Also the necessary 20% price increase every year Lest the executives maybe make more money but a smaller profit margin? How about instead of spending resources on psychological exploitation of their userbase, they either cancel that expenditure or redirect it to adding beneficial features that users want to pay for? > How about instead we just stop using Facebook? If that can solve the problem, I'm happy to consider it. > I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit. And yet, we still seem to have a problem. Once again, an utterly obvious problem seems unfixable because of some combination of excessive corporate influence over politicians combined with a disinterested public who seems to have been convinced that humans live in a world whose parameters we have absolutely no control over, all while being told how superior, powerful, and necessary democracy is. Meanwhile, over in China, when something is causing problems, the problem maker is asked to stop, and if he doesn't, he is made to stop, or else. And from anything I've seen, the Chinese government seems to be improving the well being of their citizens at a rapid pace (in both relative and absolute terms), and they have high support from the public, despite the lack of absolutely necessary Democracy. Why is it that a bi-partisan group of politicians can't get together to come up with a plan to improve the situation, and while they're doing that telegraph to these social media companies that something is going to be done, possibly very much not to their liking, so it might be in their best interests to come up with a plan B of their own that is fundamentally different than the pure advertising model of the day? Of course, there are many reasons for this, one of them being that the political system in most Western countries is effectively broken and outdated, completely incapable of managing the complexities of the over-optimized societies that the scientists and technologists have built for us, while no corresponding discipline developed to handle important questions like whether just because we can do something, should we do it? As always, I imagine we will just continue the charade of pointing our fingers at each other and the Russians, fiddling while Rome burns, as China grows ever more powerful and socially united. I hope I at least live long enough to see how this will be explained away in the future as something that "no one" could see coming, just as "no one" could have seen the 2008 housing bubble coming.
- rzmnzm 7y ago
  I do not think totalitarian dictatorship is the solution to ads on facebook.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Do you perceive that a totalitarian dictatorship is being proposed? Would you be willing to excerpt some particular quotes that you believe were most compelling in your formation of this perception?
JohnFen 7y ago
> I dropped it 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit. Yes. I dropped it much earlier than that, and have suffered no inconvenience or problem as a result.
- buboard 7y ago
  undestand though that for people who live in the poorest of regions , the ones who absolutely can't pay for it, facebook is free communication with their loved ones, often in another country. for most people that's what makes FB useful, not the constant political bickering
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Neither of you seem to be members of social groups that announce their goings-on on Facebook, because if you were you'd realize that missing out or getting your info from elsewhere is pretty damn inconvenient
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    That's not true for me. What is true is that I'm not a member of any social group that uses FB exclusively. I don't know of many that do that, because doing so excludes a lot of people.

celeritascelery 7y ago

The problem is that the most lucrative users to advertisers (lots of expendable income) are also the ones most likely to pay for the privilege of not using ads.