3 ms·
But everybody doesn't pay for Facebook, and the reason they don't do so is because Facebook is funded by ads and no one has paid for a Facebook without ads. But
by themacguffinman 6y ago
But everybody doesn't pay for Facebook, and the reason they don't do so is because Facebook is funded by ads and no one has paid for a Facebook without ads. But sure, Facebook might hypothetically still have ads if users paid, and my grandmother might hypothetically be a bicycle if she had wheels.
- throwaway2048 6y agoFacebook's purpose of existence isn't for somebody to "pay for it". Facebook's purpose of existence is to make money.
- themacguffinman 6y agoAnd the way they make money is by someone paying for it. Some sites collect payments from users directly. Facebook collects payments from advertisers because most users wouldn't use Facebook if they had to pay for it. Do you have a point? This reads like an unfinished thought.
- throwaway2048 6y agothere is absolutely no reason that they cant do both at the same time, there is a mental short circuit going on when people think paying for a website means no ads. Its never meant that in pretty much any other media.
- themacguffinman 6y agoYes there is a reason, users often don't expect to pay for services that show ads, and users who pay for services often don't expect to see ads. That's why most popular online services don't mix the two, eg. Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Google, etc. "mental short circuit" better describes your argument that jumps from "it's possible to both show ads and charge user fees" to "they always will".