5 ms·

I'd pay it if they also didn't track my browsing data. Anyone know if that's the case?

by truckerbill 3y ago

23B1 3y ago
I'd wager that the best fingerprinters/profilers work at Meta and/or the NSA.
- paganel 3y ago
  I see a company like Palantir also being active in that space. Related to this, I seem to remember that there were talks about some start-ups doing this kind of stuff on millions of people’s profiles, this was before Cambridge Analytica, I wonder what happened to them. A former colleague of mine (very smart guy) ended up working for one those start-ups back in the day (2013-2014), that’s how I first learned about their existence and about their business model.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    Many of them were acquired by larger commercial entities that service the defense/intelligence community. It's also possible to license and process much of this commercial data from brokers.
nerdponx 3y ago
That's the beauty of it, it actually allows them to double dip. People have started to buy into the "advertising is bad" concept, but without understanding that it's bad because of all the data collection, so they think that if they are paying to stop seeing ads, they're somehow safer. Meanwhile Meta can continue to make money off of their profile and data, and their subscription fee, while also getting access to a valuable feature for targeting. The argument that "if you don't pay for the product, you are the product" does not work in the inverse. If you are paying, you might still be the product. See also: your ISP, Spotify, your bank, etc. It is impossible for the free market to regulate itself with so much money on the table.
- bigyikes 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on how users are the product for Spotify?
  - truckerbill 3y ago
    There are a tiny number of major labels that control music rights. Presumably they are interested in listening data. Also Spotify free tier has ads so it's the same as any other social network in terms of fingerprinting.
- SamuelAdams 3y ago
  Microsoft Windows has been doing g this for a while. You pay for a license and they also collect telemetry data.
- celestialcheese 3y ago
  > Meanwhile Meta can continue to make money off of their profile and data, and their subscription fee, while also getting access to a valuable feature for targeting. How would facebook monetize non-ad-enabled customers?
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    A non-ad subscriber won't get shown ads, but that definitely doesn't mean Meta can't profile and collect data to sell to other ad companies so you would still get targeted ads on other websites. They just won't get shown ads on Facebook.
    - celestialcheese 3y ago
      Facebook doesn't sell data. They sell access to data. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's important because it's meaningfully different. Facebook doesn't sell data to other ad companies because that'd be giving away the very thing that makes it the most valuable advertising company in the world. Hell, we spend a huge amount on facebook, and it's impossible for us to get reports on basic things like "Spend per placement per hour". The only area that I could see them _maybe_ still monetizing an opt'ed out user is with Meta Audience Network, but I bet they would still opt them out of seeing ads on 3rd party sites that have MAN ads in their stack because that business segment is likely small compared to potential PR and fines in the EU.

I'd pay it if they also didn't track my browsing data. Anyone know if that's the case?

23B1 3y ago

I'd wager that the best fingerprinters/profilers work at Meta and/or the NSA.

paganel 3y ago
I see a company like Palantir also being active in that space. Related to this, I seem to remember that there were talks about some start-ups doing this kind of stuff on millions of people’s profiles, this was before Cambridge Analytica, I wonder what happened to them. A former colleague of mine (very smart guy) ended up working for one those start-ups back in the day (2013-2014), that’s how I first learned about their existence and about their business model.
- 23B1 3y ago
  Many of them were acquired by larger commercial entities that service the defense/intelligence community. It's also possible to license and process much of this commercial data from brokers.

nerdponx 3y ago

That's the beauty of it, it actually allows them to double dip. People have started to buy into the "advertising is bad" concept, but without understanding that it's bad because of all the data collection, so they think that if they are paying to stop seeing ads, they're somehow safer. Meanwhile Meta can continue to make money off of their profile and data, and their subscription fee, while also getting access to a valuable feature for targeting. The argument that "if you don't pay for the product, you are the product" does not work in the inverse. If you are paying, you might still be the product. See also: your ISP, Spotify, your bank, etc. It is impossible for the free market to regulate itself with so much money on the table.

bigyikes 3y ago
Can you elaborate on how users are the product for Spotify?
- truckerbill 3y ago
  There are a tiny number of major labels that control music rights. Presumably they are interested in listening data. Also Spotify free tier has ads so it's the same as any other social network in terms of fingerprinting.
SamuelAdams 3y ago
Microsoft Windows has been doing g this for a while. You pay for a license and they also collect telemetry data.
celestialcheese 3y ago
> Meanwhile Meta can continue to make money off of their profile and data, and their subscription fee, while also getting access to a valuable feature for targeting. How would facebook monetize non-ad-enabled customers?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  A non-ad subscriber won't get shown ads, but that definitely doesn't mean Meta can't profile and collect data to sell to other ad companies so you would still get targeted ads on other websites. They just won't get shown ads on Facebook.
  - celestialcheese 3y ago
    Facebook doesn't sell data. They sell access to data. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's important because it's meaningfully different. Facebook doesn't sell data to other ad companies because that'd be giving away the very thing that makes it the most valuable advertising company in the world. Hell, we spend a huge amount on facebook, and it's impossible for us to get reports on basic things like "Spend per placement per hour". The only area that I could see them _maybe_ still monetizing an opt'ed out user is with Meta Audience Network, but I bet they would still opt them out of seeing ads on 3rd party sites that have MAN ads in their stack because that business segment is likely small compared to potential PR and fines in the EU.