3 ms·

> I think people comparing ads to guns, plagues, and locusts need to check their own values. Ads support free stuff for the poor and middle classes. Until i ca

> I think people comparing ads to guns, plagues, and locusts need to check their own values. Ads support free stuff for the poor and middle classes. Until i can ACTUALLY opt out by paying money, you need to get off your high horse. My data is clearly more valuable to you than my dollars - otherwise I'd have a choice. > If you hate ads, lean into that. Don’t work for adtech, block all your ads, pay for everything. I support you and respect that! I do, pls continue to support me by: 1. making it possible to not have my data constantly collected and sold by facebook in exchange for dollars. 2. Stop tracking me after my account has been deleted. 3. Stop acting like you are part of something good while I don't have a "no surveilance" option. Until then, YOU are the problem.

jefftk 6y ago
> My data is clearly more valuable to you than my dollars - otherwise I'd have a choice. Alternatively, people are just not that willing to pay money to avoid ads. FB's revenue per user in the US is ~$5/month, but users who would pay to avoid ads tend to be richer, so to break even FB might need to charge, say, $20/month. I'd bet too few people are willing to pay $20/month to justify the costs and complexity of offering an ad free product. Especially when you consider the bad publicity that would come from offering something "overpriced".
- w0de0 5y ago
  "Per user" implies a relationship between the mark and the platform - a continuation of the fiction of consent that pervades Facebook and Google. So I'd rephrase your apologia this way: "FB's revenue per human datum in the US is ~$5/month, but discrete datums who both know they are tracked by Facebook and are rich enough to pay protection money for privacy are few. To protect everyone, they would need to pay $20/month."
originalvichy 5y ago
I think the displeasure you feel should be directed towards website developers. As far as I know the "no surveillance" option is there: the person who wrote the website can choose whether to inject a tracking program to the code or not. People are misdirecting their hatred towards ad-tracking towards ad developers when in reality the people who decide to use ad trackers in their websites should be asked questions. I understand some giant sites will always come with "we will track you" (Facebook is the easiest example) but even those Facebook spy buttons appear on websites because the developer of the site agreed to it and embedded it there.
- sophacles 5y ago
  That's pure bs. I think I'll blame the giant, powerful monopolists (either aspiring or actual). They have been using their clout to kill off organic discovery and trying to ensure stuff that isn't part of the surveillance system gets buried. This isn't a "guns don't kill people; people kill people situation", this is a "I don't like money but I want to eat, so I'll use money" situation - website developers can participate in the surveillance state or starve. That's not a practical choice.

jefftk 6y ago

> My data is clearly more valuable to you than my dollars - otherwise I'd have a choice. Alternatively, people are just not that willing to pay money to avoid ads. FB's revenue per user in the US is ~$5/month, but users who would pay to avoid ads tend to be richer, so to break even FB might need to charge, say, $20/month. I'd bet too few people are willing to pay $20/month to justify the costs and complexity of offering an ad free product. Especially when you consider the bad publicity that would come from offering something "overpriced".

w0de0 5y ago
"Per user" implies a relationship between the mark and the platform - a continuation of the fiction of consent that pervades Facebook and Google. So I'd rephrase your apologia this way: "FB's revenue per human datum in the US is ~$5/month, but discrete datums who both know they are tracked by Facebook and are rich enough to pay protection money for privacy are few. To protect everyone, they would need to pay $20/month."

originalvichy 5y ago

I think the displeasure you feel should be directed towards website developers. As far as I know the "no surveillance" option is there: the person who wrote the website can choose whether to inject a tracking program to the code or not. People are misdirecting their hatred towards ad-tracking towards ad developers when in reality the people who decide to use ad trackers in their websites should be asked questions. I understand some giant sites will always come with "we will track you" (Facebook is the easiest example) but even those Facebook spy buttons appear on websites because the developer of the site agreed to it and embedded it there.

sophacles 5y ago
That's pure bs. I think I'll blame the giant, powerful monopolists (either aspiring or actual). They have been using their clout to kill off organic discovery and trying to ensure stuff that isn't part of the surveillance system gets buried. This isn't a "guns don't kill people; people kill people situation", this is a "I don't like money but I want to eat, so I'll use money" situation - website developers can participate in the surveillance state or starve. That's not a practical choice.