3 ms·

You then run the risk of excluding developing economies. Unless you adjust the payment to be region specific, in which case you’d just get foreign powers (be th

You then run the risk of excluding developing economies. Unless you adjust the payment to be region specific, in which case you’d just get foreign powers (be that corporations or state sponsored) using their wealth to fund hordes of new registrations from said developing economies; thus negating the benefit of a sign up fee.

Barrin92 7y ago
a low single-digit dollar amount of money isn't really prohibitive any more in almost all regions on the planet for a one-off payment (networked regions, at least). That's an argument facebook itself likes to make but if you look at the WhatsApp growth which used to have a model of 1$/year it seems completely fabricated. And arguably a small payment amplifies anti-abuse measures because you have a hard financial trail. If a foreign entity buys thousands or more of accounts, not only are you putting a cost on it, it should be trivial to see the anomaly in the system.
- stevenicr 7y ago
  and a single digit isn't really prohibitive for making fake accounts either. I'd gladly pay $250 for 50 fake fbook accounts spewing the commercial and propaganda crap that makes me profit.. or just feel good about skewering another side I don't care for.
yc_2345 7y ago
As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap. Also, I think it is good for all parties concerned, because most developing economies will have a big problem becoming developed economies if their people are under constant surveillance from entities who may benefit from their continuation as developing economies. Case in point: the US dollar is a horrible currency if looked at in isolation - after all, why the heck should the rest of the world pay American kids lots of money to have a great time at college and then turn around and default on their debt? Student loan forgiveness is almost a certainty over the next few years. But people still flock to the US dollar because it is far better than the other places money could go. There may be a hint of conspiracy theory in this, for sure, but it does not require a wild stretch of imagination to expect that the country where Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is headquartered actually has a real incentive to foment violence in other countries and make their own economy and thus currency look better in comparison.
- pushpop 7y ago
  > As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap. ...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent, they need to charge a comparable local rate. That’s not patronising, this literally how all businesses work when having to compete with regional price differences. As for the rest of your post: it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind. I’d be the first to agree that there are some serious issues with some of America’s domestic and foreign policies but none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation (and some weren’t even remotely based on reality)
  - yc_2345 7y ago
    >>...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent Interesting comparison. Let us discuss that a little further. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... So Facebook provided free internet to Myanmar, and it was better than the "cheaper local equivalent" because it was actually free. Soon all the ISPs in Myanmar were out of business. Facebook was now synonymous with the internet in Myanmar, and suddenly it became a lot easier to influence people into doing pogroms. Now clearly a "western subscription service" successfully competed, and unfortunately, the pogrom did not affect the "western subscription service" in any way while millions of real humans became refugees. Generally, people's answer to this is something like "yeah, it is too bad the people were such idiots to be provoked into such violence" or in some way blaming the naivete of the local population. But imagine if Facebook was actually asked to pay compensation for every affected person, or to stop business operations in Myanmar altogether. See, you can actually do that with a local company because they have some real skin in the game. To complete my point, I don't actually give a damn if a "western subscription service" can compete for my business unless I have a way to drag Zuckerberg (figuratively speaking of course, a minion of Zuckerberg will do) to my country for trial and then send him to the local prison if found guilty of some local law. Think of it as "terms of providing service". >>it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country". >>none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.

Barrin92 7y ago

a low single-digit dollar amount of money isn't really prohibitive any more in almost all regions on the planet for a one-off payment (networked regions, at least). That's an argument facebook itself likes to make but if you look at the WhatsApp growth which used to have a model of 1$/year it seems completely fabricated. And arguably a small payment amplifies anti-abuse measures because you have a hard financial trail. If a foreign entity buys thousands or more of accounts, not only are you putting a cost on it, it should be trivial to see the anomaly in the system.

stevenicr 7y ago
and a single digit isn't really prohibitive for making fake accounts either. I'd gladly pay $250 for 50 fake fbook accounts spewing the commercial and propaganda crap that makes me profit.. or just feel good about skewering another side I don't care for.

yc_2345 7y ago

As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap. Also, I think it is good for all parties concerned, because most developing economies will have a big problem becoming developed economies if their people are under constant surveillance from entities who may benefit from their continuation as developing economies. Case in point: the US dollar is a horrible currency if looked at in isolation - after all, why the heck should the rest of the world pay American kids lots of money to have a great time at college and then turn around and default on their debt? Student loan forgiveness is almost a certainty over the next few years. But people still flock to the US dollar because it is far better than the other places money could go. There may be a hint of conspiracy theory in this, for sure, but it does not require a wild stretch of imagination to expect that the country where Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is headquartered actually has a real incentive to foment violence in other countries and make their own economy and thus currency look better in comparison.

pushpop 7y ago
> As someone who grew up in a developing economy, I find this view extremely patronizing. Usually, what happens is that a local company fills that demand gap. ...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent, they need to charge a comparable local rate. That’s not patronising, this literally how all businesses work when having to compete with regional price differences. As for the rest of your post: it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind. I’d be the first to agree that there are some serious issues with some of America’s domestic and foreign policies but none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation (and some weren’t even remotely based on reality)
- yc_2345 7y ago
  >>...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent Interesting comparison. Let us discuss that a little further. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... So Facebook provided free internet to Myanmar, and it was better than the "cheaper local equivalent" because it was actually free. Soon all the ISPs in Myanmar were out of business. Facebook was now synonymous with the internet in Myanmar, and suddenly it became a lot easier to influence people into doing pogroms. Now clearly a "western subscription service" successfully competed, and unfortunately, the pogrom did not affect the "western subscription service" in any way while millions of real humans became refugees. Generally, people's answer to this is something like "yeah, it is too bad the people were such idiots to be provoked into such violence" or in some way blaming the naivete of the local population. But imagine if Facebook was actually asked to pay compensation for every affected person, or to stop business operations in Myanmar altogether. See, you can actually do that with a local company because they have some real skin in the game. To complete my point, I don't actually give a damn if a "western subscription service" can compete for my business unless I have a way to drag Zuckerberg (figuratively speaking of course, a minion of Zuckerberg will do) to my country for trial and then send him to the local prison if found guilty of some local law. Think of it as "terms of providing service". >>it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country". >>none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.