This headline is pretty misleading. The WSJ headline is much better: "Meta Plans to Charge $14 a Month for Ad-Free Instagram or Facebook" Of course, the gener

This headline is pretty misleading. The WSJ headline is much better: "Meta Plans to Charge $14 a Month for Ad-Free Instagram or Facebook" Of course, the generally superior WSJ article is behind a paywall, which is funny when the topic under discussion is paywalls. https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-floats-charging-14-a-month-for-ad-free-instagram-or-facebook-5dbaf4d5 https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-floats-charging-14-a-month-for... I don't use Facebook too much any more, but I pay for ad-free Twitch and I would be happy to pay for ad-free Twitter if it existed. These services don't just build themselves for free, and if you don't like their ads, doesn't it seem fair to pay for them?