7 ms·

New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative. That’s why they are doing this. Meta’s revenue per user is around 40 USD iirc. Tbf, a

New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative. That’s why they are doing this. Meta’s revenue per user is around 40 USD iirc. Tbf, as much as people like whining they definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram. People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily. The reality is that this move will just prove that people like to talk but they are not willing to pay for their “freedom”.

meiraleal 3y ago
> People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily. people will easily spend no time there too if their algorithms weren't tuned to be addicted. Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing - but those companies will spend billions of dollars and use their brainwashing algorithms to prevent that. The brainwashing is so strong that it goes out of the social media border and overflow to every corner of the web, including HN. But fear no, _tracno5, we don't NEED Meta.
- _trackno5 3y ago
  Sure you don’t NEED meta. But it still offers value to their users. Regardless of their “addictive” design, you can’t deny that people want what they (and other social media) offer. It would be absurd to say they don’t add any value to people’s lives. We’re not talking about heroin here. You can always just delete all your accounts and live an unplugged life. And now you have an option to get all the upsides of social media minus the downsides of being tracked/advertised for less than the price of a pizza
- qeternity 3y ago
  > Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing Sorry which laws are those? And for the billions of people with free will who use these services, you know what's better for them than they do?
  - meiraleal 3y ago
    > Sorry which laws are those? In Brazil, false advertising is a crime (and I guess in many other countries). At least for me when I used instagram, 95% of the ads served were scam. The people buying the ads are criminals, the people selling too.
weberer 3y ago
>New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative Which regulation is that?
- _trackno5 3y ago
  Here you go: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-decision-processing-personal-data-behavioural-advertising-meta_en https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-de...
  - dcminter 3y ago
    That is not what that says. You're conflating ad-free with no ads based on tracking.
    - _trackno5 3y ago
      I am not. The EU’s move is to force Meta to stop personalised ads and Meta is pushing for an ad-free option. That’s an attempt to appease the regulators and keep their business model. They’ll make the argument that the customer has a reasonable choice: see targeted ads or pay for the service. I’m betting They’ll follow up saying the business model in the EU will not be viable without personalised ads (which it really probably won’t) and that they’ll consider leaving the EU altogether. Then the EU can have fun figuring out what will be the economic impact for its economy after they get cut off the largest social network Meta has ditched Canadian news already. If the finances don’t make sense in the EU, I won’t be surprised they just ditch it
      - nerdbert 3y ago
        How much can Meta ditch before its all-important network effect starts to implode? Threads hasn't really gotten off the ground, and I'd say a good part of the reason why is that it excludes the EU, which is full of very online-engaged people.
      - dcminter 3y ago
6510 3y ago
> ad-free alternative. ha-ha, if only! Your advert slots will just be filled with generic adverts. (Think big brands/dumb ads/tv ads)
- wcoenen 3y ago
  While the EU regulation allows for that, that's not what Meta is offering. Meta is offering paid, ad-free access to facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/ https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-...
ralferoo 3y ago
> Tbf, as much as people like whining they definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram. People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily. I read this kind of argument regularly to justify any subscription service, and simply, it's bogus. Maybe you, as the commenter might feel you get $12 per month worth of entertainment or spend 4-6h on the site daily, but that's simply not true for everyone. I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago, so it's value to me is exactly $0 per month, but I've seen this argument made for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, etc, none of which I have a subscription for. Now, all of those I perhaps would get some value from, but less than the minimum subscription value. Currently, I can still enjoy Youtube for free, but their recent push to make advertising far more obnoxious will probably push me away entirely. When that day happens, even though I enjoy watching Youtube occasionally, it's simply not worth the price of the minimum subscription, so I will just stop using it. It's actually already pretty close to that point for me - recently, adverts seem to be far more frequent than before and I've noticed a few occasions when I've had two back-to-back 30-second un-skippable adverts every 5-10 minutes. When these tactics eventually force me off the platform, their revenue from me will go from a little per month from ad revenue to $0 per month.
- qeternity 3y ago
  > I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago Obviously implicit in GP comment is that _people who use these services_ derive great value from them. Nobody expects someone who deleted their account to think $12 is a reasonable price.
  - ralferoo 3y ago
    That's why I continued talking about another service that I do use that is trying a similar move at a similar price point. The point is that the poster I was replying to believes that because they think it's good value at $12 per month, it's necessarily the same for everybody. It isn't.
    - _trackno5 3y ago
      I’m not saying I believe $12 is good value. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s just a fact. Similar forms of entertainment cost the same. You’re the one with the subjective opinion here because you personally don’t see value in it and make the assumption that is the absolute truth

meiraleal 3y ago

> People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily. people will easily spend no time there too if their algorithms weren't tuned to be addicted. Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing - but those companies will spend billions of dollars and use their brainwashing algorithms to prevent that. The brainwashing is so strong that it goes out of the social media border and overflow to every corner of the web, including HN. But fear no, _tracno5, we don't NEED Meta.

_trackno5 3y ago
Sure you don’t NEED meta. But it still offers value to their users. Regardless of their “addictive” design, you can’t deny that people want what they (and other social media) offer. It would be absurd to say they don’t add any value to people’s lives. We’re not talking about heroin here. You can always just delete all your accounts and live an unplugged life. And now you have an option to get all the upsides of social media minus the downsides of being tracked/advertised for less than the price of a pizza
qeternity 3y ago
> Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing Sorry which laws are those? And for the billions of people with free will who use these services, you know what's better for them than they do?
- meiraleal 3y ago
  > Sorry which laws are those? In Brazil, false advertising is a crime (and I guess in many other countries). At least for me when I used instagram, 95% of the ads served were scam. The people buying the ads are criminals, the people selling too.

weberer 3y ago

>New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative Which regulation is that?

_trackno5 3y ago
Here you go: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-decision-processing-personal-data-behavioural-advertising-meta_en https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-de...
- dcminter 3y ago
  That is not what that says. You're conflating ad-free with no ads based on tracking.
  - _trackno5 3y ago
    I am not. The EU’s move is to force Meta to stop personalised ads and Meta is pushing for an ad-free option. That’s an attempt to appease the regulators and keep their business model. They’ll make the argument that the customer has a reasonable choice: see targeted ads or pay for the service. I’m betting They’ll follow up saying the business model in the EU will not be viable without personalised ads (which it really probably won’t) and that they’ll consider leaving the EU altogether. Then the EU can have fun figuring out what will be the economic impact for its economy after they get cut off the largest social network Meta has ditched Canadian news already. If the finances don’t make sense in the EU, I won’t be surprised they just ditch it
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      How much can Meta ditch before its all-important network effect starts to implode? Threads hasn't really gotten off the ground, and I'd say a good part of the reason why is that it excludes the EU, which is full of very online-engaged people.
    - dcminter 3y ago

6510 3y ago

> ad-free alternative. ha-ha, if only! Your advert slots will just be filled with generic adverts. (Think big brands/dumb ads/tv ads)

wcoenen 3y ago
While the EU regulation allows for that, that's not what Meta is offering. Meta is offering paid, ad-free access to facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/ https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-...

ralferoo 3y ago

> Tbf, as much as people like whining they definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram. People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily. I read this kind of argument regularly to justify any subscription service, and simply, it's bogus. Maybe you, as the commenter might feel you get $12 per month worth of entertainment or spend 4-6h on the site daily, but that's simply not true for everyone. I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago, so it's value to me is exactly $0 per month, but I've seen this argument made for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, etc, none of which I have a subscription for. Now, all of those I perhaps would get some value from, but less than the minimum subscription value. Currently, I can still enjoy Youtube for free, but their recent push to make advertising far more obnoxious will probably push me away entirely. When that day happens, even though I enjoy watching Youtube occasionally, it's simply not worth the price of the minimum subscription, so I will just stop using it. It's actually already pretty close to that point for me - recently, adverts seem to be far more frequent than before and I've noticed a few occasions when I've had two back-to-back 30-second un-skippable adverts every 5-10 minutes. When these tactics eventually force me off the platform, their revenue from me will go from a little per month from ad revenue to $0 per month.

qeternity 3y ago
> I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago Obviously implicit in GP comment is that _people who use these services_ derive great value from them. Nobody expects someone who deleted their account to think $12 is a reasonable price.
- ralferoo 3y ago
  That's why I continued talking about another service that I do use that is trying a similar move at a similar price point. The point is that the poster I was replying to believes that because they think it's good value at $12 per month, it's necessarily the same for everybody. It isn't.
  - _trackno5 3y ago
    I’m not saying I believe $12 is good value. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s just a fact. Similar forms of entertainment cost the same. You’re the one with the subjective opinion here because you personally don’t see value in it and make the assumption that is the absolute truth