5 ms·
The problem isn't that they charge at all but that they charge too much. The court ruled that a "reasonable" charge can be asked but at an ARPU of $45, it seems
by Youden 2y ago
The problem isn't that they charge at all but that they charge too much. The court ruled that a "reasonable" charge can be asked but at an ARPU of $45, it seems Meta is asking users who value their privacy for twice as much money ($120/yr) as the average user gives them in ad revenue.
- ajmurmann 2y agoHow does the court decide what's "reasonable"? What does "reasonable" even mean? Isn't it up to consumers and the company to find the equilibrium price? Does the court have some arcane economic formulas I'm unaware of?
- 39896880 2y ago> Isn't it up to consumers and the company to find the equilibrium price? Remember, Facebook’s users are not the consumers. They are the sources of surveillance capitalism’s crucial surplus: the objects of a technologically advanced and increasingly inescapable raw-material-extraction operation. Surveillance capitalism’s actual customers are the enterprises that trade in its markets for future behavior.
- ajmurmann 2y agoWho is paying the $120/yr? Advertisers or consumers?
- 39896880 2y agoRecall that the fee was only implemented to comply with the EU regulation and ostensibly to make up for the revenue not gained from selling behavioral information. If you want to test who Facebook’s real customers are, look at whose interests they put first.
- ajmurmann 2y agoWhy does this matter? Users and Meta mutually agree to this. What kind of nanny state prevents grown adults from entering a contact that hands nobody else?
- 39896880 2y agoThe “choice” for users amounts to “let us track you, or completely disconnect from commerce and communication.” That is not a choice, that is extortion. Especially when you add a literal protection fee to it.