7 ms·

Ideally Facebook should just allow users to buy a subscription. I think a lot of people, at least in the western world, wouldn't mind paying say $1-2 dollars a

Ideally Facebook should just allow users to buy a subscription. I think a lot of people, at least in the western world, wouldn't mind paying say $1-2 dollars a month maybe even more, if Facebook were honest about how they use your data, and how much money they make of of your data. I mean, we're all happily paying $8.99 for Netflix and friends, is it really so outrageous that consumers would pay for a social network?

maxwellito 6y ago
It sounds great, sadly I think Facebook can generate much more by showing you advertising.
- was_boring 6y ago
  A very small percentage would actually buy one and it would be very good PR. It would almost be a marketing expense at that point.
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  It's definitely more than 1-2 dollars, but not so high that subscriptions would be too expensive for users. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-leads-social-media-companies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-pe...
  - anchpop 6y ago
    Although the average revenue per user who would be willing to spend $7/quarter is probably much higher (these users are disproportionately likely to have disposable income which probably makes them more attractive to advertisers)
    - virgilp 6y ago
      I think nobody would mind advertisers being able to target to "subscribers". What people don't want is the ability of advertisers to target "white male who works at ACME, lives in north Fairview and bought a car last week" (which might narrow it down to just you). That said, I definitely believe that collecting subscription money would not stop them from trying to collect data about you, for advertising purposes. They'd view subscription as just a new revenue stream (yay!).
      - grumple 6y ago
        It's like cable tv has come full circle... you pay for tv without ads, then they start having ads. Facebook will never stop collecting data on its users as long as it exists.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    If Facebook were to charge just $1/month, I'd be willing to bet they'd still lose 80% of their users, at which point, the value would be decreased enough for the remaining 20% most of them would leave too.
- spyke112 6y ago
  Sure, but then they should at least give me the choice of matching the "lost" ad money as a subscription. At Facebook scale we are talking about millions of users, who would probably choose that path instead.
- maxwellito 6y ago
  Also, can you imagine the money saved by removing all the teams and infra dedicated to ads and data collection.
- wavesounds 6y ago
  Yeah currently $164 a year for a US user and growing [1]. What percentage of users would be willing to pay $13.67 a month? Probably not very many unfortunately. It's an order of magnitude more than what OP said he would to pay 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    $13.67/month for a tool that includes chat, voice/video calling (accessible from any platform), social networking, the ability to maintain a page for yourself or business (equivalent of a blog/web hosting), near-unlimited cloud storage for photos and videos both on Facebook and Instagram (and probably a lot more features that I'm forgetting) is an absolute bargain.
  - amelius 6y ago
    But isn't the user paying that indirectly, anyway? (I mean somebody is paying that $164)
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    True, but couldn’t Facebook make money other ways? Eg build new products that work with Facebook and sell them. An ethical Facebook may find it could enter new markets.
sixothree 6y ago
How much exactly does facebook make from its users per month?
- fbelzile 6y ago
  About $26 a quarter for US/Canada users, so just under $9/mo. https://whotargets.me/en/much-facebook-makes-per-user-per-minute-spent-facebook/ https://whotargets.me/en/much-facebook-makes-per-user-per-mi...
  - spyke112 6y ago
    Facinating, so basically the same as you'd pay for Netflix in the US on a monthly basis.
  - maest 6y ago
    I probabl would be down to paying that for Facebook, especially considering the product would be massively better than their current offering. No ads + optimising for platform utility instead of eyeball time would do wonders for Facebook.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      Why do you think there would be no ads? There's just no way that 100% of FB users would be willing to pay for it like you are. As an example, Hulu membership costs money AND you still have ads. Newspapers cost money AND have ads (the ads subsidized the cost but didn't make it free).
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      Just like how paying for cable TV means no ads right?
      - maest 6y ago
        Just like how paying for Netflix means no ads.
neodymiumphish 6y ago
The problem is that data collection still wouldn't stop just cause you're paying. The trackers they build into sites would still exist to track non-paying customers, and they'd have to track the paying customers enough to differentiate from non-paying. And if you're saying that all of Facebook becomes a subscription, you still end up with the problem that Facebook has pointed out: small sites that earn income from Facebook by implementing their tracking widget would lose that source of income. I think we should be more vocal about the extensions and products that help block FB (and other) web trackers, to force their model to change, but I think we're a long way away from anything truly effective.
- maxwellito 6y ago
  > The problem is that data collection still wouldn't stop just cause you're paying. Completely agree! There's cannot be any grey area here. It must be all ad-based or all-subscription. But the move seems impossible
- loxs 6y ago
  I don't empathise at all with "small sites" that track me or benefit from someone else tracking me.
  - neodymiumphish 6y ago
    Nor do I, but it's worth noting that these sites would go out of business or have their revenue severely impacted or force their customer base to offset the financial losses in order to stay afloat. If you don't browse sites that do this tracking, then you shouldn't care either way about this whole FB/Apple controversy/dispute. If you do browse these sites, get ready for the potential of a major shift in those sites' business model.
    - loxs 6y ago
      The major shift is exactly the right development
- randomsearch 6y ago
glomph 6y ago
But everyone hates facebook at this point. Seems very unlikely they would pay for it rather than jumping ship.
- dylan604 6y ago
  If only this were true. "But every techie hates facebook at this point." might be more accurate. Or, "But techies and tweenies who think FB if for old people hate facebook." might be even more accurate. However, there are millions upon millions of people that do love it. They don't know/don't care about the actual price of FB's 'free and always will be' service. To them it is free because it doesn't cost them money, and that's as far as they want to think about it. Any further discussion makes you one of the conspiracy people.
oxymoran 6y ago
The shareholders would never let them leave money on the table.
- r00fus 6y ago
  You realize how much stock Zuck has, right?
- jonathathan 6y ago
  There's no pressure from the board or shareholders on the CEO, he holds the majority voting rights
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Tracking users though — that's bad PR, bad for business. Smart shareholders/CEO's think about brand as well, think long term as well.
vmception 6y ago
I pay for linked in That’s social media except only founders and ceos post because disagreement doesn't affect their ability to exchange time for food and shelter, unlike all the employees and candidates Some people would pay for Facebook But Facebook’s cash cow is every small business or even idea will pay to target ads. Any corporate-led disruption to how many people that would target will be a massive deterrent to use Facebook’s platforms.
- MikeKusold 6y ago
  LinkedIn is a terrible example of a premium social network. The main reason that people pay for LinkedIn is for recruiting. So LinkedIn is selling their (free) users to recruiters and by doing so it completely destroys the experience. I always have tons of InMail and Friend Requests whenever I open LinkedIn, however they are rarely from ex-coworkers or friends. It is just a steady stream of low-effort "You'd be a perfect fit" messages.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    I had the LinkedIn Premium trial. I expected the ads and dark patterns (such as the constant nags to add a picture, follow bullshit people or hashtags and resetting the feed to algorithmic instead of chronological) to cease but no. Needless to say I'm not paying a single penny to this terrible company.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Its a perfect example that people would find value in multiple ways I need inmail, I’m not a recruiter or candidate
joseph_grobbles 6y ago
Pay $1500 for a laptop and it will often have crapware installed. Buy a $1000 Samsung TV and it will track your viewing, sell the data, and show you ads. Buy a high end dishwasher and seemingly 50% of the logic on the device is to encourage you to use Jet Dry (because they get a kickback per unit from the Finish people, not because it's more than marginally beneficial). Simply paying alone often isn't enough -- this sort of sleezy behavior is endemic.
- cultus 6y ago
  I avoid buying anything "smart." Very few things need to be connected to the internet or have an OS. There's no reason I've seen for a TV or fridge to be smart except for nefarious purposes.
  - bee_rider 6y ago
    There are various home automation tasks that might be neat (hit the remote and the lights dim and the room goes into movie mode) but * Nobody seems to implement these * The risk of smart devices actively working against us is too high * I have 0% faith in Samsung's ability to keep a fridge OS updated over the, whatever, 20 year lifespan of a fridge. Unfortunately so many things are "smart" nowadays that it can be hard to avoid, but at least I can keep the wifi password away from the devices. For now. Until the manufacturers start including cell modems in the things.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Yes. "Connect to WiFi?" [Skip]
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Soon: "Please connect to Wi-Fi."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
victor106 6y ago
I deleted my fb account 5 years ago and I hate fb. But so many of my friends are semi active on fb. Most of them hate fb but still use it cause it provides them some relevant info. For e.g; I know a mom who finds answers on her local moms group that makes her life super easy. Also read this https://notboring.substack.com/p/everybody-hates-facebook https://notboring.substack.com/p/everybody-hates-facebook
im3w1l 6y ago
Let's say 20% of users outright refuse to pay. I don't think this is unrealistic. Now there will be people with a lot of friends who left, and they ask themselves, "if my friends aren't on here, why am I paying??", so they leave too. It keeps rippling through the social graph like this until there only a hardcore facebook fanbase remains. If they were forced to find an alternative income source, they'd be better off going with freemium.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > It keeps rippling through the social graph like this until this is a very hand-wavy slippery-slope argument. You think the entire social network crumbles because of 20% of users? The lack of right not to be part of a network (shadow profiles) is one of the problems with FB, so if SNs can't exist without payment, maybe they just shouldn't exist. I personally think society values SNs to the extent that this *won't8 happen, but let it be an exercise in seeing how much SNs are truly valued.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I think it's this principle in action https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      I'm not sure if it is. That effect requires the majority to make no distinction (wrt desirability) between halal/kosher and regular. I don't think people are as indifferent to "being the product", or are becoming less so.
jiux 6y ago
Can envision this turning into “let us track you for free access” or pay some sort of monthly subscription for denied tracking + access. If socially engineered in just the right way, would not be surprised if majority of people would allow this. Now I wonder if this goes against an App Store policy somewhere or if this is one way Apple will combat such an attempt.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >Can envision this turning into “let us track you for free access” That's exactly what it already is and we're past the point where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    One of the huge problems at the moments is that it tracks you even if you don’t use it. We’ve never been at “let us track you for free access”, we jumped directly to “we track you and you can’t do a thing to avoid it”. As despicable as Facebook’s behaviour is as far as its users are concerned, at least one could claim that there is an implicit contract (I am sure everything is explained clearly in 2pt white font on a white background on a page that’s not linked to and not indexed by Google). There is no such excuse for non-users who are tracked all the same.
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
      Fair and true points. Hopefully, at some point in the near future, we'll see some accountability for this abhorrent behaviour.
onion2k 6y ago
I think a lot of people, at least in the western world, wouldn't mind paying say $1-2 dollars a month maybe even more.. The problem is that Facebook only represents good value (paid in ad views, personal data, or money as you suggest) if lots of your friends stay on it. It needs the "network" aspect of social networking to operate. Consequently, even if you're willing to pay $1/month if your friends aren't to pay then that $1 represents terrible value and you'll leave because there's no value in paying. This is the inherent problem in charging for any 'network' product - it has to represent good value for everyone not just a few people.
annadane 6y ago
Here's the issue, Whatsapp had a system like that but then Facebook bought it up and it's hard to think of a reason beyond 'we want to crush our competition'
jakelazaroff 6y ago
So why are they not doing it now? There are three possible explanations: 1. They haven't thought of it. 2. They underestimate how profitable it would be. 3. It would be less profitable than what they're doing now. Option 1 seems ridiculous. Option 2 is possible if Facebook is blinded by corporate inertia, or if enough people working directly on the ads feel threatened. But there are a lot of smart people working there, who stand to make a lot of money by increasing profits. So I'm going with option 3. They don't do it because spying on everyone is more profitable.

maxwellito 6y ago

It sounds great, sadly I think Facebook can generate much more by showing you advertising.

was_boring 6y ago
A very small percentage would actually buy one and it would be very good PR. It would almost be a marketing expense at that point.
bun_at_work 6y ago
It's definitely more than 1-2 dollars, but not so high that subscriptions would be too expensive for users. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-leads-social-media-companies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-pe...
- anchpop 6y ago
  Although the average revenue per user who would be willing to spend $7/quarter is probably much higher (these users are disproportionately likely to have disposable income which probably makes them more attractive to advertisers)
  - virgilp 6y ago
    I think nobody would mind advertisers being able to target to "subscribers". What people don't want is the ability of advertisers to target "white male who works at ACME, lives in north Fairview and bought a car last week" (which might narrow it down to just you). That said, I definitely believe that collecting subscription money would not stop them from trying to collect data about you, for advertising purposes. They'd view subscription as just a new revenue stream (yay!).
    - grumple 6y ago
      It's like cable tv has come full circle... you pay for tv without ads, then they start having ads. Facebook will never stop collecting data on its users as long as it exists.
- ghaff 6y ago
  If Facebook were to charge just $1/month, I'd be willing to bet they'd still lose 80% of their users, at which point, the value would be decreased enough for the remaining 20% most of them would leave too.
spyke112 6y ago
Sure, but then they should at least give me the choice of matching the "lost" ad money as a subscription. At Facebook scale we are talking about millions of users, who would probably choose that path instead.
maxwellito 6y ago
Also, can you imagine the money saved by removing all the teams and infra dedicated to ads and data collection.
wavesounds 6y ago
Yeah currently $164 a year for a US user and growing [1]. What percentage of users would be willing to pay $13.67 a month? Probably not very many unfortunately. It's an order of magnitude more than what OP said he would to pay 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  $13.67/month for a tool that includes chat, voice/video calling (accessible from any platform), social networking, the ability to maintain a page for yourself or business (equivalent of a blog/web hosting), near-unlimited cloud storage for photos and videos both on Facebook and Instagram (and probably a lot more features that I'm forgetting) is an absolute bargain.
- amelius 6y ago
  But isn't the user paying that indirectly, anyway? (I mean somebody is paying that $164)
- randomsearch 6y ago
  True, but couldn’t Facebook make money other ways? Eg build new products that work with Facebook and sell them. An ethical Facebook may find it could enter new markets.

sixothree 6y ago

How much exactly does facebook make from its users per month?

fbelzile 6y ago
About $26 a quarter for US/Canada users, so just under $9/mo. https://whotargets.me/en/much-facebook-makes-per-user-per-minute-spent-facebook/ https://whotargets.me/en/much-facebook-makes-per-user-per-mi...
- spyke112 6y ago
  Facinating, so basically the same as you'd pay for Netflix in the US on a monthly basis.
- maest 6y ago
  I probabl would be down to paying that for Facebook, especially considering the product would be massively better than their current offering. No ads + optimising for platform utility instead of eyeball time would do wonders for Facebook.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Why do you think there would be no ads? There's just no way that 100% of FB users would be willing to pay for it like you are. As an example, Hulu membership costs money AND you still have ads. Newspapers cost money AND have ads (the ads subsidized the cost but didn't make it free).
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    Just like how paying for cable TV means no ads right?
    - maest 6y ago
      Just like how paying for Netflix means no ads.

neodymiumphish 6y ago

The problem is that data collection still wouldn't stop just cause you're paying. The trackers they build into sites would still exist to track non-paying customers, and they'd have to track the paying customers enough to differentiate from non-paying. And if you're saying that all of Facebook becomes a subscription, you still end up with the problem that Facebook has pointed out: small sites that earn income from Facebook by implementing their tracking widget would lose that source of income. I think we should be more vocal about the extensions and products that help block FB (and other) web trackers, to force their model to change, but I think we're a long way away from anything truly effective.

maxwellito 6y ago
> The problem is that data collection still wouldn't stop just cause you're paying. Completely agree! There's cannot be any grey area here. It must be all ad-based or all-subscription. But the move seems impossible
loxs 6y ago
I don't empathise at all with "small sites" that track me or benefit from someone else tracking me.
- neodymiumphish 6y ago
  Nor do I, but it's worth noting that these sites would go out of business or have their revenue severely impacted or force their customer base to offset the financial losses in order to stay afloat. If you don't browse sites that do this tracking, then you shouldn't care either way about this whole FB/Apple controversy/dispute. If you do browse these sites, get ready for the potential of a major shift in those sites' business model.
  - loxs 6y ago
    The major shift is exactly the right development
randomsearch 6y ago

glomph 6y ago

But everyone hates facebook at this point. Seems very unlikely they would pay for it rather than jumping ship.

dylan604 6y ago
If only this were true. "But every techie hates facebook at this point." might be more accurate. Or, "But techies and tweenies who think FB if for old people hate facebook." might be even more accurate. However, there are millions upon millions of people that do love it. They don't know/don't care about the actual price of FB's 'free and always will be' service. To them it is free because it doesn't cost them money, and that's as far as they want to think about it. Any further discussion makes you one of the conspiracy people.

oxymoran 6y ago

The shareholders would never let them leave money on the table.

r00fus 6y ago
You realize how much stock Zuck has, right?
jonathathan 6y ago
There's no pressure from the board or shareholders on the CEO, he holds the majority voting rights
JKCalhoun 6y ago
Tracking users though — that's bad PR, bad for business. Smart shareholders/CEO's think about brand as well, think long term as well.

vmception 6y ago

I pay for linked in That’s social media except only founders and ceos post because disagreement doesn't affect their ability to exchange time for food and shelter, unlike all the employees and candidates Some people would pay for Facebook But Facebook’s cash cow is every small business or even idea will pay to target ads. Any corporate-led disruption to how many people that would target will be a massive deterrent to use Facebook’s platforms.

MikeKusold 6y ago
LinkedIn is a terrible example of a premium social network. The main reason that people pay for LinkedIn is for recruiting. So LinkedIn is selling their (free) users to recruiters and by doing so it completely destroys the experience. I always have tons of InMail and Friend Requests whenever I open LinkedIn, however they are rarely from ex-coworkers or friends. It is just a steady stream of low-effort "You'd be a perfect fit" messages.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I had the LinkedIn Premium trial. I expected the ads and dark patterns (such as the constant nags to add a picture, follow bullshit people or hashtags and resetting the feed to algorithmic instead of chronological) to cease but no. Needless to say I'm not paying a single penny to this terrible company.
- vmception 6y ago
  Its a perfect example that people would find value in multiple ways I need inmail, I’m not a recruiter or candidate

joseph_grobbles 6y ago

Pay $1500 for a laptop and it will often have crapware installed. Buy a $1000 Samsung TV and it will track your viewing, sell the data, and show you ads. Buy a high end dishwasher and seemingly 50% of the logic on the device is to encourage you to use Jet Dry (because they get a kickback per unit from the Finish people, not because it's more than marginally beneficial). Simply paying alone often isn't enough -- this sort of sleezy behavior is endemic.

cultus 6y ago
I avoid buying anything "smart." Very few things need to be connected to the internet or have an OS. There's no reason I've seen for a TV or fridge to be smart except for nefarious purposes.
- bee_rider 6y ago
  There are various home automation tasks that might be neat (hit the remote and the lights dim and the room goes into movie mode) but * Nobody seems to implement these * The risk of smart devices actively working against us is too high * I have 0% faith in Samsung's ability to keep a fridge OS updated over the, whatever, 20 year lifespan of a fridge. Unfortunately so many things are "smart" nowadays that it can be hard to avoid, but at least I can keep the wifi password away from the devices. For now. Until the manufacturers start including cell modems in the things.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Yes. "Connect to WiFi?" [Skip]
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Soon: "Please connect to Wi-Fi."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

victor106 6y ago

I deleted my fb account 5 years ago and I hate fb. But so many of my friends are semi active on fb. Most of them hate fb but still use it cause it provides them some relevant info. For e.g; I know a mom who finds answers on her local moms group that makes her life super easy. Also read this https://notboring.substack.com/p/everybody-hates-facebook https://notboring.substack.com/p/everybody-hates-facebook

im3w1l 6y ago

Let's say 20% of users outright refuse to pay. I don't think this is unrealistic. Now there will be people with a lot of friends who left, and they ask themselves, "if my friends aren't on here, why am I paying??", so they leave too. It keeps rippling through the social graph like this until there only a hardcore facebook fanbase remains. If they were forced to find an alternative income source, they'd be better off going with freemium.

Chris2048 6y ago
> It keeps rippling through the social graph like this until this is a very hand-wavy slippery-slope argument. You think the entire social network crumbles because of 20% of users? The lack of right not to be part of a network (shadow profiles) is one of the problems with FB, so if SNs can't exist without payment, maybe they just shouldn't exist. I personally think society values SNs to the extent that this *won't8 happen, but let it be an exercise in seeing how much SNs are truly valued.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I think it's this principle in action https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I'm not sure if it is. That effect requires the majority to make no distinction (wrt desirability) between halal/kosher and regular. I don't think people are as indifferent to "being the product", or are becoming less so.

jiux 6y ago

Can envision this turning into “let us track you for free access” or pay some sort of monthly subscription for denied tracking + access. If socially engineered in just the right way, would not be surprised if majority of people would allow this. Now I wonder if this goes against an App Store policy somewhere or if this is one way Apple will combat such an attempt.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>Can envision this turning into “let us track you for free access” That's exactly what it already is and we're past the point where ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
- kergonath 6y ago
  One of the huge problems at the moments is that it tracks you even if you don’t use it. We’ve never been at “let us track you for free access”, we jumped directly to “we track you and you can’t do a thing to avoid it”. As despicable as Facebook’s behaviour is as far as its users are concerned, at least one could claim that there is an implicit contract (I am sure everything is explained clearly in 2pt white font on a white background on a page that’s not linked to and not indexed by Google). There is no such excuse for non-users who are tracked all the same.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    Fair and true points. Hopefully, at some point in the near future, we'll see some accountability for this abhorrent behaviour.

onion2k 6y ago

I think a lot of people, at least in the western world, wouldn't mind paying say $1-2 dollars a month maybe even more.. The problem is that Facebook only represents good value (paid in ad views, personal data, or money as you suggest) if lots of your friends stay on it. It needs the "network" aspect of social networking to operate. Consequently, even if you're willing to pay $1/month if your friends aren't to pay then that $1 represents terrible value and you'll leave because there's no value in paying. This is the inherent problem in charging for any 'network' product - it has to represent good value for everyone not just a few people.

annadane 6y ago

Here's the issue, Whatsapp had a system like that but then Facebook bought it up and it's hard to think of a reason beyond 'we want to crush our competition'

jakelazaroff 6y ago

So why are they not doing it now? There are three possible explanations: 1. They haven't thought of it. 2. They underestimate how profitable it would be. 3. It would be less profitable than what they're doing now. Option 1 seems ridiculous. Option 2 is possible if Facebook is blinded by corporate inertia, or if enough people working directly on the ads feel threatened. But there are a lot of smart people working there, who stand to make a lot of money by increasing profits. So I'm going with option 3. They don't do it because spying on everyone is more profitable.