6 ms·

You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on, since it means you have disposable income to spend on something as

You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on, since it means you have disposable income to spend on something as useless as instagram or facebook. Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest and sell your data AND take your money.

WarmWash 5mo ago
If I'm paying and still getting unwanted ads...then I am no longer going to be paying. I'm not sure what win Meta sees here.
- HnUser12 5mo ago
  You may not get ads in the app, but they can still sell your data for other services who will give you ads.
  - okanat 5mo ago
    Or even if you block all ads, the statistical value of your data is still important for showing ads to people like you and people around you.
  - brianmiddleton 5mo ago
    You WILL be getting ads in the app, though. There's nothing in the article that says you won't. This is like Snapchat's subscription. You get more features, but still have the ads. This isn't replacing "if it's free, you're the product", it's "if you're willing to pay, you're an even more valuable product".
    - cpt_sobel 5mo ago
      Don't they already have some subscription to get rid of ads?
      - brianmiddleton 5mo ago
        In some countries, but not everywhere. I know it exists in the UK, maybe EU as well.
- pen1slicker 5mo ago
  [dead]
tgma 5mo ago
People who spew I'd rather pay, I'd rather pay often majorly underestimate how expensive Google and Facebook would have to be in the western world to offset the ad revenue per person. The irony is this is especially true for you if money is no object to you, as you'd be disproportionately valuable to the ad machine. It's not going to be ten bucks folks.
- bigmadshoe 5mo ago
  You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So <$5 per month for someone in the developed world to keep using Instagram and stop being the product. If they redesigned the app around what’s best for users vs advertisers, it actually seems like a great deal, considering many people spend multiple hours per day on apps like these. Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    How's your YouTube Premium subscription?
    - bigmadshoe 5mo ago
      I don’t watch enough YouTube to warrant that. My elderly father on the other hand, who watches several hours of YouTube per day on his television, finally got YouTube premium and has found it to be life changing. The TV YouTube app regularly shows 2+ minutes of unskipable adds per video.
    - komali2 5mo ago
      That was a great deal when it came bundled with YouTube music. When they bizarrely tried to merge the two products so that when I was interested in watching videos, all I got was music video recommendations, it lost its lustre. Now I would rather just pay for a couple Patreons. I heard there's some new pay to use YouTube thing out there that creators are pushing, I can't remember the name but I hopped on it and didn't see any extra content beyond what's offered on YouTube so I don't see the point. Oh and before I got grayjay so I could have ad free casting of videos, premium was nice for when watching on the tv.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
"Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest [and sell] your data AND take your money." (Meta sells access not data) Google has been doing this for a while with YouTube The data collection and surveillance will of course be used to support online advertising services. The ads can be delivered outside YouTube by other Alphabet business units or partners There seems to be a myth that paying so-called "tech" companies solves the problem of data collection, surveillance and online advertising. As if for every subscriber the company will voluntarily collect less data, perform less surveillance and sell less ad services, leaving that money on the table The truth is that these subscribers, by paying the companies that perform data collection, surveillance and advertising services, are actually subsidising the practice
- joquarky 5mo ago
  What are they even doing with all of this data collection, especially considering that ads still are terrible at pertaining to my interests?
  - bonoboTP 5mo ago
    Make the feed curation algo more addictive.
    - MetaWhirledPeas 5mo ago
      ...which generates usage data, which in turn feeds itself? Circular economics, how convenient.
      - bonoboTP 5mo ago
        Also the ads are not just classical ads for coca cola or a mattress sale, but people and organizations paying to boost their content in the feed, which can be all kinds of manipulation, political, but also more organic looking brand management or astroturfing. Marketing is way more nowadays than just straightforward "here is a product you may be interested in, buy it".
thaumasiotes 5mo ago
> You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on No, qqtt is correct that if you're paying, you get a vote. It may not be all that much of a vote, but it's more than you'd have if you weren't paying, and Meta will pay attention to it. For a recent example of how this works, consider that with the post-October-7th wave of pro-Palestinian activism on US college campuses, a lot of rich Jews moved to squelch it as best they could -- not by offering new donations conditional on universities adopting their favored political positions, but by threatening to suspend their existing, habitual, "unconditional" donations.
- auggierose 5mo ago
  Not sure I understand this. The vote is, pay or not pay. If you pay, you vote yes.
- Lutger 5mo ago
  The 'vote' is real. But it is 'darwinian'. It's not that animals develop a certain adaptation on purpose in order to survive. Instead, out of many random changes an adaptation emerges by selection: those that are the most advantageous get the chance to pass on their genes. If everybody stops using meta apps and starts using signal, bluesky, mastodon, etc., meta would instantly transform their business (if they still can make a profit). The problem is, subtly harvesting data from and even shoveling ads into paid subscriptions actually doesn't make consumers immediately and massively cancel their subs. So you can make a profit from subscriptions alone, or make an even larger profit by also collecting and monetizing your customers data. Guess who will win?
seanclayton 5mo ago
If it's a tech company it's not "if it's free you're the product" it's just "you're the product" nowadays. I am so happy kids these days no longer trust tech because I'd hate to see how exploited they'd be otherwise.
bko 5mo ago
Isn't that the whole point of social media like Instagram? To convince the world you have disposable income and are living a lavish lifestyle? Personally I like signaling that I have money. Why would you want people to think you're poor or cheap, except maybe when you're shopping for a car.
- akdev1l 5mo ago
  > Why would you want people to think you're poor or cheap, except maybe when you're shopping for a car. Personally, I don’t generally think about how other people perceive if I have money or not.
  - bko 5mo ago
    Ah, you must be one of those that cuts his own hair, shops strictly at thrift shops and wears bags as shoes.
    - skeeter2020 5mo ago
      Maybe hthe GP is confident enough to have passed by the shallow indicator of displaying their wealth? The richest people I know personally (and who I deeply respect) absolutely delight in people under-estimating them, assuming they're "poor plebs" like the rest of us. They like money, recognize it's important and appreciate what it allows, but feel no need to advertise it.
    - akdev1l 5mo ago
      I get my hair cut at a place where it costs $45 and I get a haircut every 1-2 months at best. I wear my shoes until they break. I wear Vans Sk8 old skool high tops most of the time. I am also on track to retire by 40 if all goes well. (Which is to say I don’t have THAT much money)
      - bko 5mo ago
        Ah, so you generally think about how other people perceive if you have money or not. Enough to answer an internet stranger inquiring about your wealth, and flexing about retiring at 40 (congrats). Thanks for proving my point.
heathrow83829 5mo ago
fb doesn't actually "sell your data", they use for ad targetting and even then, the ad targetting is waaayyy off, in my experience. they're hardly getting any use out of it for targetting me.
damnesian 5mo ago
>you have disposable income to spend on something as useless as instagram or facebook Useless in the big picture, but I know people who are cobbling together various income streams to maintain basic quality of life- including sponsored posts on social media. Which gives the platforms a very real value. I'm not saying they aren't exploitative, and overall they don't contribute to the advancement of society- but there a a LOT of big employment holes in the west and like these platforms or not, these platforms are plugging a lot of holes, if only mostly timidly except for the usual stars.

WarmWash 5mo ago

If I'm paying and still getting unwanted ads...then I am no longer going to be paying. I'm not sure what win Meta sees here.

HnUser12 5mo ago
You may not get ads in the app, but they can still sell your data for other services who will give you ads.
- okanat 5mo ago
  Or even if you block all ads, the statistical value of your data is still important for showing ads to people like you and people around you.
- brianmiddleton 5mo ago
  You WILL be getting ads in the app, though. There's nothing in the article that says you won't. This is like Snapchat's subscription. You get more features, but still have the ads. This isn't replacing "if it's free, you're the product", it's "if you're willing to pay, you're an even more valuable product".
  - cpt_sobel 5mo ago
    Don't they already have some subscription to get rid of ads?
    - brianmiddleton 5mo ago
      In some countries, but not everywhere. I know it exists in the UK, maybe EU as well.
pen1slicker 5mo ago
[dead]

tgma 5mo ago

People who spew I'd rather pay, I'd rather pay often majorly underestimate how expensive Google and Facebook would have to be in the western world to offset the ad revenue per person. The irony is this is especially true for you if money is no object to you, as you'd be disproportionately valuable to the ad machine. It's not going to be ten bucks folks.

bigmadshoe 5mo ago
You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So <$5 per month for someone in the developed world to keep using Instagram and stop being the product. If they redesigned the app around what’s best for users vs advertisers, it actually seems like a great deal, considering many people spend multiple hours per day on apps like these. Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.
- fragmede 5mo ago
  How's your YouTube Premium subscription?
  - bigmadshoe 5mo ago
    I don’t watch enough YouTube to warrant that. My elderly father on the other hand, who watches several hours of YouTube per day on his television, finally got YouTube premium and has found it to be life changing. The TV YouTube app regularly shows 2+ minutes of unskipable adds per video.
  - komali2 5mo ago
    That was a great deal when it came bundled with YouTube music. When they bizarrely tried to merge the two products so that when I was interested in watching videos, all I got was music video recommendations, it lost its lustre. Now I would rather just pay for a couple Patreons. I heard there's some new pay to use YouTube thing out there that creators are pushing, I can't remember the name but I hopped on it and didn't see any extra content beyond what's offered on YouTube so I don't see the point. Oh and before I got grayjay so I could have ad free casting of videos, premium was nice for when watching on the tv.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

"Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest [and sell] your data AND take your money." (Meta sells access not data) Google has been doing this for a while with YouTube The data collection and surveillance will of course be used to support online advertising services. The ads can be delivered outside YouTube by other Alphabet business units or partners There seems to be a myth that paying so-called "tech" companies solves the problem of data collection, surveillance and online advertising. As if for every subscriber the company will voluntarily collect less data, perform less surveillance and sell less ad services, leaving that money on the table The truth is that these subscribers, by paying the companies that perform data collection, surveillance and advertising services, are actually subsidising the practice

joquarky 5mo ago
What are they even doing with all of this data collection, especially considering that ads still are terrible at pertaining to my interests?
- bonoboTP 5mo ago
  Make the feed curation algo more addictive.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 5mo ago
    ...which generates usage data, which in turn feeds itself? Circular economics, how convenient.
    - bonoboTP 5mo ago
      Also the ads are not just classical ads for coca cola or a mattress sale, but people and organizations paying to boost their content in the feed, which can be all kinds of manipulation, political, but also more organic looking brand management or astroturfing. Marketing is way more nowadays than just straightforward "here is a product you may be interested in, buy it".

thaumasiotes 5mo ago

> You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on No, qqtt is correct that if you're paying, you get a vote. It may not be all that much of a vote, but it's more than you'd have if you weren't paying, and Meta will pay attention to it. For a recent example of how this works, consider that with the post-October-7th wave of pro-Palestinian activism on US college campuses, a lot of rich Jews moved to squelch it as best they could -- not by offering new donations conditional on universities adopting their favored political positions, but by threatening to suspend their existing, habitual, "unconditional" donations.

auggierose 5mo ago
Not sure I understand this. The vote is, pay or not pay. If you pay, you vote yes.
Lutger 5mo ago
The 'vote' is real. But it is 'darwinian'. It's not that animals develop a certain adaptation on purpose in order to survive. Instead, out of many random changes an adaptation emerges by selection: those that are the most advantageous get the chance to pass on their genes. If everybody stops using meta apps and starts using signal, bluesky, mastodon, etc., meta would instantly transform their business (if they still can make a profit). The problem is, subtly harvesting data from and even shoveling ads into paid subscriptions actually doesn't make consumers immediately and massively cancel their subs. So you can make a profit from subscriptions alone, or make an even larger profit by also collecting and monetizing your customers data. Guess who will win?

seanclayton 5mo ago

If it's a tech company it's not "if it's free you're the product" it's just "you're the product" nowadays. I am so happy kids these days no longer trust tech because I'd hate to see how exploited they'd be otherwise.

bko 5mo ago

Isn't that the whole point of social media like Instagram? To convince the world you have disposable income and are living a lavish lifestyle? Personally I like signaling that I have money. Why would you want people to think you're poor or cheap, except maybe when you're shopping for a car.

akdev1l 5mo ago
> Why would you want people to think you're poor or cheap, except maybe when you're shopping for a car. Personally, I don’t generally think about how other people perceive if I have money or not.
- bko 5mo ago
  Ah, you must be one of those that cuts his own hair, shops strictly at thrift shops and wears bags as shoes.
  - skeeter2020 5mo ago
    Maybe hthe GP is confident enough to have passed by the shallow indicator of displaying their wealth? The richest people I know personally (and who I deeply respect) absolutely delight in people under-estimating them, assuming they're "poor plebs" like the rest of us. They like money, recognize it's important and appreciate what it allows, but feel no need to advertise it.
  - akdev1l 5mo ago
    I get my hair cut at a place where it costs $45 and I get a haircut every 1-2 months at best. I wear my shoes until they break. I wear Vans Sk8 old skool high tops most of the time. I am also on track to retire by 40 if all goes well. (Which is to say I don’t have THAT much money)
    - bko 5mo ago
      Ah, so you generally think about how other people perceive if you have money or not. Enough to answer an internet stranger inquiring about your wealth, and flexing about retiring at 40 (congrats). Thanks for proving my point.

heathrow83829 5mo ago

fb doesn't actually "sell your data", they use for ad targetting and even then, the ad targetting is waaayyy off, in my experience. they're hardly getting any use out of it for targetting me.

damnesian 5mo ago

>you have disposable income to spend on something as useless as instagram or facebook Useless in the big picture, but I know people who are cobbling together various income streams to maintain basic quality of life- including sponsored posts on social media. Which gives the platforms a very real value. I'm not saying they aren't exploitative, and overall they don't contribute to the advancement of society- but there a a LOT of big employment holes in the west and like these platforms or not, these platforms are plugging a lot of holes, if only mostly timidly except for the usual stars.