5 ms·

In short: A subscription service that lets you verify your account with a government ID, for $11.99/month/web or $14.99/month on iOS. Support included. If this

In short: A subscription service that lets you verify your account with a government ID, for $11.99/month/web or $14.99/month on iOS. Support included. If this removed ads, added more controls on what you see and what is shared/sold to 3rd party, I'd actually consider it! But ads are not mentioned and ads are probably worth more than 12$/user/mo and.. this would probably help them track you "better".

jefftk 4y ago
Facebook makes $43/y per user on average [1], but it's $69/y in Europe and $235/y in the US and Canada. And then there's the problem that the users most likely to pay are more valuable than average to advertise to. [1] Worldwide quarterly ARPU x4: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
- tmikaeld 4y ago
  Even if it was 20$/mo (higher than top yearly average), I'd consider it if it became a privacy service and focus shifted from the users to the product.
  - replicanteven 4y ago
    The problem is that people who are willing to pay $20/mo for privacy are much more valuable to advertisers than those who can't. If those users go away, the average $/user from ads goes down, because the only people seeing ads are those who are too poor to avoid it. To an advertiser, poor people who direct their attention towards whatever is put in front of them are worth a lot less than rich people who carefully curate what their attention is directed towards. It's grody, but that's the advertising industry for you.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Right, someone willing to regularly pay $20/month is probably worth closer to $40/month to potential advertisers. It probably scales all the way up until $10k/month, which is near the upper limit of what super-luxury brands, that would buy ads online, can earn per customer. So the curious implication is that such services could be 'free' or $20k/month. But with a changing advertising market and lower budgets, FB might view the alignment of incentives more beneficial.
    - DoctorOW 4y ago
      Counterpoint, the main demographic for this already uses ad/tracker blockers. I'm sure Meta has some ways around that but getting that $20/month is much easier from a willing participant.
      - dmix 4y ago
        The lack of ad blockers on mobile is the real sweet spot. I pay for Youtube 100% to use it on mobile/ipad without ads. So even ad-blocking privacy people still see lots of ads if they use these apps.
        antiframe 4y ago
        Mobile does not lack ad blockers. I use uBlock Origin on Firefox without any problem.
        dmix 4y ago
        Firefox's usage rate on Android is tiny, among that I doubt even >10-25% know you can install an adblocker (which is generous but they are probably more technical). And I use iOS on mobile.
        grepfru_it 4y ago
        >Mobile Interesting, firefox on my iphone mobile[0] does not allow this... [0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios
        antiframe 4y ago
        That's unfortunate. But saying that mobile lacks ad blockers is a bit disingenuous given that the largest mobile platform has a very good ad blocker. In a similar vein, the world does not lack ICE cars because a minority of them are electric.
        dmix 4y ago
  - codq 4y ago
    Yep, I'd consider paying more, even. There's a reason their products are so engaging and sticky—they're enjoyable to use! And they'd be significantly more enjoyable if you didn't have the Eye of Sauron watching you and trying to manipulate you at all times. I'd pay considerably for that.
leodriesch 4y ago
I am wondering how this works out for YouTube with Premium. It removes ads and is 12€/mo.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  YouTube seems to make much less from ads per user. Not sure why, you'd think that video ads would be more lucrative. Maybe more people have ad blockers?
bogomipz 4y ago
I don't think this "subscription service" is actually for the user I think it's for the advertisers. I think the fee is just a smokescreen. I imagine FB having access to something like a driver license gives them your address, height, eye color, signature, data of birth etc. I'm sure they will monetize this in all kinda of new ways. For example maybe political adds since you can target based on voter precinct, auto insurance, neighborhood demographics and of course a premium tier of "blue checkmark verified" eyeballs to advertisers.

jefftk 4y ago

Facebook makes $43/y per user on average [1], but it's $69/y in Europe and $235/y in the US and Canada. And then there's the problem that the users most likely to pay are more valuable than average to advertise to. [1] Worldwide quarterly ARPU x4: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...

tmikaeld 4y ago
Even if it was 20$/mo (higher than top yearly average), I'd consider it if it became a privacy service and focus shifted from the users to the product.
- replicanteven 4y ago
  The problem is that people who are willing to pay $20/mo for privacy are much more valuable to advertisers than those who can't. If those users go away, the average $/user from ads goes down, because the only people seeing ads are those who are too poor to avoid it. To an advertiser, poor people who direct their attention towards whatever is put in front of them are worth a lot less than rich people who carefully curate what their attention is directed towards. It's grody, but that's the advertising industry for you.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Right, someone willing to regularly pay $20/month is probably worth closer to $40/month to potential advertisers. It probably scales all the way up until $10k/month, which is near the upper limit of what super-luxury brands, that would buy ads online, can earn per customer. So the curious implication is that such services could be 'free' or $20k/month. But with a changing advertising market and lower budgets, FB might view the alignment of incentives more beneficial.
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    Counterpoint, the main demographic for this already uses ad/tracker blockers. I'm sure Meta has some ways around that but getting that $20/month is much easier from a willing participant.
    - dmix 4y ago
      The lack of ad blockers on mobile is the real sweet spot. I pay for Youtube 100% to use it on mobile/ipad without ads. So even ad-blocking privacy people still see lots of ads if they use these apps.
      - antiframe 4y ago
        Mobile does not lack ad blockers. I use uBlock Origin on Firefox without any problem.
        dmix 4y ago
        Firefox's usage rate on Android is tiny, among that I doubt even >10-25% know you can install an adblocker (which is generous but they are probably more technical). And I use iOS on mobile.
        grepfru_it 4y ago
        >Mobile Interesting, firefox on my iphone mobile[0] does not allow this... [0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios
        antiframe 4y ago
        That's unfortunate. But saying that mobile lacks ad blockers is a bit disingenuous given that the largest mobile platform has a very good ad blocker. In a similar vein, the world does not lack ICE cars because a minority of them are electric.
        dmix 4y ago
- codq 4y ago
  Yep, I'd consider paying more, even. There's a reason their products are so engaging and sticky—they're enjoyable to use! And they'd be significantly more enjoyable if you didn't have the Eye of Sauron watching you and trying to manipulate you at all times. I'd pay considerably for that.

leodriesch 4y ago

I am wondering how this works out for YouTube with Premium. It removes ads and is 12€/mo.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
YouTube seems to make much less from ads per user. Not sure why, you'd think that video ads would be more lucrative. Maybe more people have ad blockers?

bogomipz 4y ago

I don't think this "subscription service" is actually for the user I think it's for the advertisers. I think the fee is just a smokescreen. I imagine FB having access to something like a driver license gives them your address, height, eye color, signature, data of birth etc. I'm sure they will monetize this in all kinda of new ways. For example maybe political adds since you can target based on voter precinct, auto insurance, neighborhood demographics and of course a premium tier of "blue checkmark verified" eyeballs to advertisers.