5 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg, Let Me Pay for Facebook

19 points by zer00 11y ago

skidoo 11y ago
This is insane. Facebook does not care what its users think- even to the point of illegally tracking non-users. http://www.sciencealert.com/this-portable-capsule-lets-you-live-off-the-grid-anywhere-in-the-world http://www.sciencealert.com/this-portable-capsule-lets-you-l... Why give them money, why reward them, for their arrogance?
- reagency 11y ago
  Your two sentences don't relate.
  - skidoo 11y ago
    They obviously will do whatever they feel they can get away with. If they feel entitled to illegally track non-users, how could anyone presume they'd give a rat's ass for actual users?
eyan 11y ago
Eh? Just get out of Facebook. We've got Gmail. Oh, wait.
oconnor663 11y ago
> If Facebook didn’t have to control the feed to keep us on the site longer and to inject ads into our stream, it could instead offer us control over this algorithm. Facebook has launched features in the past to let people control what Newsfeed shows. None of them did very well. > I would, as I bet many others would, happily pay more than 20 cents per month for a Facebook or a Google that...upgraded its encryption... FB and Google do some of the world's best work on internet crypto. Give them some credit.
gnicholas 11y ago
The professor makes a pretty elementary error in calculating the amount the user would have to pay to replace advertising. She cites the profit per user—not the revenue. It's still a small amount per user, but for readers who spot the error but don't take the time to check the revenue amount might write off her argument based on this fundamental mistake.
- bko 11y ago
  Great point. 2014 revenue: 12.5B (11.5B advertising, 974MM payments and other fees) 2014 users: ~1.3B but probably ~700MM daily users Annual Revenue per user: ~$8.85 - ~$17 (depending how you count it) My personal experience is that people claim that they would pay more for things than they actually would, especially when its more on principal (privacy). And I imagine just having to go through the trouble of handing over your credit card would be a significant deterrent. That's why I imagine companies like Apple are so insistent to have payment information on file to make that transaction easier.
hashberry 11y ago
I wouldn't pay for privacy, but I'd pay to access other people's private information. Go the LinkedIn route!
mindcrash 11y ago
Paying for Facebook will not solve the problem of corporate surveillance, thus the lucrative business of collecting personal data. Only legislation and enforcing that legislation will.
haxel 11y ago
The author seems to ignore the degree of power Facebook, Zuckerberg, and friends gain from a vast quantity of detailed information about people's lives. I can't imagine Zuckerberg would trade the unlimited upside (optionality) of real power and influence for stable, predictable income. Upside is why Facebook's market cap as of today is $230 billion.
eck 11y ago
You cannot compare averages because the users who choose to pay to kill ads will not be randomly selected. No, there will be massive adverse selection -- the users with lots of disposable income are the ones that make advertising lucrative, and will be exactly the ones who pay to opt out of it. The averages massively understate what they would have to charge.

19 points by zer00 11y ago

This is insane. Facebook does not care what its users think- even to the point of illegally tracking non-users. http://www.sciencealert.com/this-portable-capsule-lets-you-live-off-the-grid-anywhere-in-the-world http://www.sciencealert.com/this-portable-capsule-lets-you-l... Why give them money, why reward them, for their arrogance?

reagency 11y ago
Your two sentences don't relate.
- skidoo 11y ago
  They obviously will do whatever they feel they can get away with. If they feel entitled to illegally track non-users, how could anyone presume they'd give a rat's ass for actual users?

eyan 11y ago

Eh? Just get out of Facebook. We've got Gmail. Oh, wait.

oconnor663 11y ago

> If Facebook didn’t have to control the feed to keep us on the site longer and to inject ads into our stream, it could instead offer us control over this algorithm. Facebook has launched features in the past to let people control what Newsfeed shows. None of them did very well. > I would, as I bet many others would, happily pay more than 20 cents per month for a Facebook or a Google that...upgraded its encryption... FB and Google do some of the world's best work on internet crypto. Give them some credit.

gnicholas 11y ago

The professor makes a pretty elementary error in calculating the amount the user would have to pay to replace advertising. She cites the profit per user—not the revenue. It's still a small amount per user, but for readers who spot the error but don't take the time to check the revenue amount might write off her argument based on this fundamental mistake.

bko 11y ago
Great point. 2014 revenue: 12.5B (11.5B advertising, 974MM payments and other fees) 2014 users: ~1.3B but probably ~700MM daily users Annual Revenue per user: ~$8.85 - ~$17 (depending how you count it) My personal experience is that people claim that they would pay more for things than they actually would, especially when its more on principal (privacy). And I imagine just having to go through the trouble of handing over your credit card would be a significant deterrent. That's why I imagine companies like Apple are so insistent to have payment information on file to make that transaction easier.

hashberry 11y ago

I wouldn't pay for privacy, but I'd pay to access other people's private information. Go the LinkedIn route!

mindcrash 11y ago

Paying for Facebook will not solve the problem of corporate surveillance, thus the lucrative business of collecting personal data. Only legislation and enforcing that legislation will.

haxel 11y ago

The author seems to ignore the degree of power Facebook, Zuckerberg, and friends gain from a vast quantity of detailed information about people's lives. I can't imagine Zuckerberg would trade the unlimited upside (optionality) of real power and influence for stable, predictable income. Upside is why Facebook's market cap as of today is $230 billion.

eck 11y ago

You cannot compare averages because the users who choose to pay to kill ads will not be randomly selected. No, there will be massive adverse selection -- the users with lots of disposable income are the ones that make advertising lucrative, and will be exactly the ones who pay to opt out of it. The averages massively understate what they would have to charge.