4 ms·

The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. The problem is that the companies are treating it as another money grab instead of a reaso

The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. The problem is that the companies are treating it as another money grab instead of a reasonable alternative payment option. They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. If they wanted to offer $2 bucks a month, they would probably still profit more on this, and it would also be a reasonable deal for the user. edit: not correct. Closer to $20 per month per user in the US for FB actually.

apercu 3y ago
...and they will still try to find ways to use the data after you pay. Because the fines are rounding errors versus the profits.
- sime2009 3y ago
  https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ For Facebook is would be either 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, or 4% of said revenue. A bit bigger than a rounding error.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    None of this has ever been applied, as proven by Facebook still being in business despite blatantly breaching the GDPR since 2018. Even when they got close to actually getting a deterring fine, the corrupt Irish DPA bailed them out: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
  - apercu 3y ago
    Fair, but for those 6 billion people that don't live in the EU....
JacobSeated 3y ago
It's the average per user, not a precise figure that fits on every user, but nevertheless I have seen no evidence to suggest that it would be inaccurate so far. Maybe you can find some?
dkyc 3y ago
> They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. This is somewhat incorrect. In Europe (which this is about), Facebook's average revenue per user is about $70 per year (~$6/mo), and in the US it's around $232 (~$19/mo). Taking into account the additional overhead of collecting payments from individual users, support, etc., it's definitely not orders of magnitude away. All data from Meta's last annual report: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646c-c642-42d9-9229-3892b13aabfb.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646...
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I guess I was wrong about that. I remember reading years ago how shockingly little revenue targeted ads actually generate per user, but that must have changed. Also curious why FB is making 3x as much per user in the US vs Europe.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Europe has stronger privacy laws.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I'd guess it's a combination of three things: GDPR reducing the effectiveness of targeted ads, the online advertising industry being more mature/established in the US, and Europe being generally more fragmented, reducing the size of ad campaigns.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    US customers have more spending power than the average EU customer. So the ads are worth more as there's more opportunity to sell.
    - consp 3y ago
      GDP with PPP compensated is on par or better in NW Europe and for all of the EU it's about 70% of the USA (which has about 100m more people than the USA). You'd expect it to be a lot closer. Yes it is most likely to be less but not a factor of 3 simply based on purchasing power alone.
wkat4242 3y ago
> The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. This is not what this is. It's paying or seeing ads. Tracking is done anyway. For the ads they do still sell on other platforms. What should really be the case is to have untracked ads as an option instead of targeted ones.
izzydata 3y ago
There is also the problem that you would pay them per month to not see ads and then they would still collect data on you and sell it. Where is this idea coming from that they are going to stop data collection just because you pay them to stop serving you ads?
gabeaweg 3y ago
I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be able to set whatever prices they want. They are a private company, they do not have a monopoly, and their service is anything but essential.
- 3D30497420 3y ago
  I'm not sure if this applies in this specific case (or if this is covered in the article), but one of the main concerns is that privacy basically becomes something only the rich can afford. Of course, this sort of thing happens in basically every other aspect of our lives, but depending on how the law is written it may or may not be legal. For example, the rich can afford safer cars, but there are still minimum safety requirements. Presumably a car company could release a cheap car without seat belts, ABS brakes, etc. The market may like this, but it may not be allowed under the law. A company may charge whatever they want for non-ad or non-tracking plans, but if they are priced out of the reach of most people, they may not be following intent of the law or how it is written. Of course there's also the moral argument as well, but I'm guessing you were thinking more of the legal/economic side.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  Because the law says that consent is only valid if it is freely given and freely revocable. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. If Facebook's business model is dependent upon breaching the rights of their users, then the EU does not want their business.
ecmascript 3y ago
What you're writing is probably true but kind of irrelevant. They set whatever price they want and if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I block all the ads and tracking, use a specific browser for whenever I browse facebook under a fake account so paying $10 a month is not worth it to me. I maybe would pay if it was like $2 but at the same time I don't really use Meta products to actually pay for it. I agree that the price is ridiculously high but at the same time I can't blame them. At least they finally give users a choice, something I never thought would happen.
throw_pm23 3y ago
Yes, the idea of payment is good, I would consider using FB if they would pay me a non-trivial amount for it. Me paying for it, now, that's an interesting proposition.
cma 3y ago
The users that will pay are not the average user: they are worth more in online ads because they have more disposable income that they deploy online.
d1sxeyes 3y ago
I know you’ve acknowledged the numbers in your response are off, but nevertheless there’s a seemingly problematic assumption underlying this statement even if your numbers held true: there’s no reason that Facebook should only ask users to cover the opportunity cost difference between having ads and not having ads. Although the “appropriateness” of the fee may be called into question, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Facebook will successfully argue that with operating costs of around 6 billion per month, and around 3 billion MAU (i.e. around 2 USD/user), with good SaaS margins expected to be around 80%, a charge of around 10 USD per month is not “inappropriate”, which is almost exactly what they’re charging.

apercu 3y ago

...and they will still try to find ways to use the data after you pay. Because the fines are rounding errors versus the profits.

sime2009 3y ago
https://gdpr.eu/fines/ https://gdpr.eu/fines/ For Facebook is would be either 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, or 4% of said revenue. A bit bigger than a rounding error.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  None of this has ever been applied, as proven by Facebook still being in business despite blatantly breaching the GDPR since 2018. Even when they got close to actually getting a deterring fine, the corrupt Irish DPA bailed them out: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
- apercu 3y ago
  Fair, but for those 6 billion people that don't live in the EU....

JacobSeated 3y ago

It's the average per user, not a precise figure that fits on every user, but nevertheless I have seen no evidence to suggest that it would be inaccurate so far. Maybe you can find some?

dkyc 3y ago

> They don't make anywhere close to $10 a month selling ads to a user. This is somewhat incorrect. In Europe (which this is about), Facebook's average revenue per user is about $70 per year (~$6/mo), and in the US it's around $232 (~$19/mo). Taking into account the additional overhead of collecting payments from individual users, support, etc., it's definitely not orders of magnitude away. All data from Meta's last annual report: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646c-c642-42d9-9229-3892b13aabfb.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/e574646...

fallingknife 3y ago
I guess I was wrong about that. I remember reading years ago how shockingly little revenue targeted ads actually generate per user, but that must have changed. Also curious why FB is making 3x as much per user in the US vs Europe.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Europe has stronger privacy laws.
- Zak 3y ago
  I'd guess it's a combination of three things: GDPR reducing the effectiveness of targeted ads, the online advertising industry being more mature/established in the US, and Europe being generally more fragmented, reducing the size of ad campaigns.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  US customers have more spending power than the average EU customer. So the ads are worth more as there's more opportunity to sell.
  - consp 3y ago
    GDP with PPP compensated is on par or better in NW Europe and for all of the EU it's about 70% of the USA (which has about 100m more people than the USA). You'd expect it to be a lot closer. Yes it is most likely to be less but not a factor of 3 simply based on purchasing power alone.

wkat4242 3y ago

> The idea of paying for use instead of data collection is a good one. This is not what this is. It's paying or seeing ads. Tracking is done anyway. For the ads they do still sell on other platforms. What should really be the case is to have untracked ads as an option instead of targeted ones.

izzydata 3y ago

There is also the problem that you would pay them per month to not see ads and then they would still collect data on you and sell it. Where is this idea coming from that they are going to stop data collection just because you pay them to stop serving you ads?

gabeaweg 3y ago

I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be able to set whatever prices they want. They are a private company, they do not have a monopoly, and their service is anything but essential.

3D30497420 3y ago
I'm not sure if this applies in this specific case (or if this is covered in the article), but one of the main concerns is that privacy basically becomes something only the rich can afford. Of course, this sort of thing happens in basically every other aspect of our lives, but depending on how the law is written it may or may not be legal. For example, the rich can afford safer cars, but there are still minimum safety requirements. Presumably a car company could release a cheap car without seat belts, ABS brakes, etc. The market may like this, but it may not be allowed under the law. A company may charge whatever they want for non-ad or non-tracking plans, but if they are priced out of the reach of most people, they may not be following intent of the law or how it is written. Of course there's also the moral argument as well, but I'm guessing you were thinking more of the legal/economic side.
jdietrich 3y ago
Because the law says that consent is only valid if it is freely given and freely revocable. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. If Facebook's business model is dependent upon breaching the rights of their users, then the EU does not want their business.

ecmascript 3y ago

What you're writing is probably true but kind of irrelevant. They set whatever price they want and if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I block all the ads and tracking, use a specific browser for whenever I browse facebook under a fake account so paying $10 a month is not worth it to me. I maybe would pay if it was like $2 but at the same time I don't really use Meta products to actually pay for it. I agree that the price is ridiculously high but at the same time I can't blame them. At least they finally give users a choice, something I never thought would happen.

throw_pm23 3y ago

Yes, the idea of payment is good, I would consider using FB if they would pay me a non-trivial amount for it. Me paying for it, now, that's an interesting proposition.

cma 3y ago

The users that will pay are not the average user: they are worth more in online ads because they have more disposable income that they deploy online.

d1sxeyes 3y ago

I know you’ve acknowledged the numbers in your response are off, but nevertheless there’s a seemingly problematic assumption underlying this statement even if your numbers held true: there’s no reason that Facebook should only ask users to cover the opportunity cost difference between having ads and not having ads. Although the “appropriateness” of the fee may be called into question, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Facebook will successfully argue that with operating costs of around 6 billion per month, and around 3 billion MAU (i.e. around 2 USD/user), with good SaaS margins expected to be around 80%, a charge of around 10 USD per month is not “inappropriate”, which is almost exactly what they’re charging.