6 ms·
It’s almost as if, given information and a choice, people prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized. Of course, if this catches on (and I hope it does), we u
by allenrb 5y ago
It’s almost as if, given information and a choice, people prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized.
Of course, if this catches on (and I hope it does), we ultimately run up against “people prefer not to pay for things.” Will be fun to watch.
- umanwizard 5y agoWell, of course. But there's a free-rider/tragedy-of-the-commons problem here: people might reasonably think the monetization of their eyeballs is an acceptable cost to be able to use something like Facebook, even if they choose not to be monetized when they get to use Facebook either way. However, if nobody could be monetized, then Facebook couldn't exist, making those people (for whom monetization of their eyeballs is an acceptable cost in exchange for Facebook) to be worse off. The only reason piracy and ad-blocking haven't totally killed for-profit media is because most people don't use them (either because they don't know how, for legal or ethical reasons, or because it's a hassle).
- Zababa 5y agoIt's a bit of a cynical take, but maybe it'll help cut useless apps and help people focus on what matters a bit more. A good thing about paying for something with money is that it makes you conscious of what you're doing. When you're paying with your data, it's harder.
- csilverman 5y agoAgreed. And I have to wonder if online extremism would be less of a problem if sites like Facebook switched to a payment model. State-sponsored troll farms might be willing to pay for access, but most regular-Joe crazies/griefers probably would not. (Making social media harder to access cuts both ways, of course; it's entirely possible that limiting social media to those who can pay would only amplify the voices of bad guys with money. Does make me wonder how much social media toxicity is related to these sites being totally free, though.)
- meepmorp 5y agoYeah, but facebook would just take the money and still harvest your data.
- zohch 5y ago> It’s almost as if, given information and a choice, people prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized. I wonder, are people who use facebook and who would prefer to not have their eyeballs monetized like this not aware of Facebook's business model? How do they think Facebook will stay operational? I personally think it's best to just drop Facebook, but I'm sure my parents and grandparents would rather have Facebook with adds than no Facebook.
- kingaillas 5y ago>How do they think Facebook will stay operational? The same way ads work in print media - the publisher doesn't have as detailed targeting info for the advertiser, and presumably would charge less.
- zohch 5y ago> The same way ads work in print media Do adds in print media not "monetize people's eyeballs" also? > The publisher doesn't have as detailed targeting info for the advertiser, and presumably would charge less. Okay but I was responding to a claim about adds not tracking.
- freeone3000 5y agoNothing about this change prevents Facebook from serving ads! Opting out doesn't remove ads, only tracking.
- zohch 5y agoI agree, but I still don't understand what people who prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized are doing on Facebook.
- freeone3000 5y agoConnecting with their friends and family.