Meta wants to charge EU users $14 a month if they don’t agree to personalized ads on Facebook and Instagram::Meta is considering offering ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram for $14 a month – but only in Europe.
deleted by creator
Do they really think their service is worth 12-15 bucks a month?
No, it’s a punitive fee.
If you need to use facebook for whatever reason, but refuse to opt in to targeted ads, we will punish you with this fee.
Yup, it’s just a way to force people to give up this right.
I wish them the best of luck with this tactic. (not)
No
I’d maybe be willing to pay $12-15 per annum for no user tracking. But that price per month is a joke. They just want to deter people from paying by offering an inflated price, so they can turn around in a few months and argue there is no demand for it.
Facebook obviously makes more the 12 to 15 dollars per year per user on ads.
I think the goal is to say they offer both an ad free and ad supported experience. The user then can choose which they want. This may skirt some grey areas in the law since it really puts the burden on the user to choose.
Well, now we’ll see if the EU finally pulls its head out of their ass and clarifies that no, “consent” gained this way isn’t “freely given”, or if they legalize the practice and make GDPR even more of a joke.
Various DPAs have taken different positions on this, unfortunately encouraging this practice.
I seem to remember that it’s already there - the consent or lack thereof cannot be the basis for denying service.
It’s unclear and as I said, some privacy regulators are saying it’s OK. Hence the need for clarification.
Well, now we’ll see if the EU finally pulls its head out of their ass
They’re doing plenty, what are you talking about?
GDPR has turned into a joke due to lack of enforcement (partially due to Ireland serving as a “privacy violation haven”). For years saying “no” to tracking required many clicks, and I don’t know of any companies that received penalties that would exceed the extra profit they made from that. Even blatantly illegal schemes where not agreeing locked you out of the web site usually didn’t get punished.
Many sites still don’t get proper consent, and also check out what many consider under “necessary” or “legitimate interest” cookies/tracking that you get after you said no. In hindsight, breaking the law was the only smart thing for sites to do, and many did.
Then, this bullshit. GDPR and the original explanations were pretty clear that the intent was to ban this kind of “agree or pay” scheme, and here we are. Of course they’ll do it, because they win either way. Either it’s considered legal, or there are no meaningful consequences…
This is not the only thing where the EU moves at a snails pace, ignoring that industry is making a joke out of well intended regulations. Many praise the EU for making Apple adopt USB-C. What they miss is that the attempts to standardize chargers started in 2009, when most manufacturers, Apple included, promised to agree on a standard, and then the EU let Apple dance on their nose flying loopings though loopholes for 14 years. That’s right. Apple introduced Lightning after they were supposed to standardize, and the EU let them.
There has already been multiple rulings under the GDPR where pages made it too hard to reject processing of personal data.
Google was forced to change their consent banner to make it easier to decline.
GDPR explicitly says that it must be as easy to decline as it is to accept. Paying €14 per month is not as easy as not paying €14 per month.
Consent is also not “freely given” if paying is the only way to avoid consenting.
Unfortunately, due to lack of clarity (and lack of clarification), many DPAs (privacy regulators!) have explicitly declared the “pay with data or money” model OK.
Google may have been one of the very few cases where a meaningful fine was given. For almost everyone else, blatantly breaking the law paid off big time.
Yeah, you’re right, it seems many of these sites are getting a free pass, and reaping she benefits… Eventhough it’s obviously not allowed by the GDPR.
You make it sound as if the EU is bad at this, while they are at the absolute forefront of fighting for our rights in several different categories.
The Irish DPA must be so incredibly corrupt.
He really wants to sink that ship, doesn’t he?
Very X of you, facebook
Active users go
brrrrrrtthppppptI hope this move will drive people away from degenerate Instagram and Facebook…
“personalized” ads. So does this mean if you pay $14 a month you’ll still get the exact same amount of ads but they just won’t be personalized? LOL
Maybe read the article? LOL
I think it is $14 not to get ads at all. I think the EU directive is likely worded as such that it states if adverts are forced on users they must be able to opt out of targeted advertising. So his (lawyers’) thinking is to provide an overpriced ad-free tier to be able to say that there’s an option so he can force users to get personalized ads.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meta has a new plan to navigate the European Union’s tough new ad privacy rules – charge users $14 a month.
The tech giant is considering getting customers in Europe to pay monthly subscription fees to use Instagram and Facebook if they don’t agree to let Meta use their data to serve them ads, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The bloc’s regulators ruled last year that Meta must give users the option to opt out of personalized ads based on their activity on their platforms.
Showing ads based on user engagement is an integral part of Meta’s business model, but it’s one that has come under increasing pressure over the past few years.
The potential subscription tiers are the latest sign of how Europe’s tough regulatory approach is forcing tech giants to make major changes to their businesses.
Meta was handed a $1.3 billion fine by European regulators for data privacy violations in May, and the company also delayed the launch of its Twitter competitor Threads in Europe over regulatory uncertainty.
The original article contains 343 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Do not threaten me with a good time not paying for things I don’t need, young man
I guess this is a fair indication then of how much Meta receives per person from advertisers…
Your money will always be less valuable than your data.
The amount is based on the threshold at which they believe most people will just accept the ad terms rather than pay. Thus it is slightly more than pretty much any other mainstream streaming or subscription service.
Perversely; I’m always less inclined to buy a product that I’ve seen advertised… “Why do they need to advertise it? It can’t be up to much.” And “Part of the ticket price has gone into advertising, so it’s not so valuable a thing.”, usually being my first thoughts.
While that’s totally fair, I’d argue that new businesses have to reach customers somehow, and social media is a cheap and effective advertising tool.
There is always a grift, I’d expect the charge to users to be probably 20-50% higher than the revenue from normal users.
Yes. I think they are padding this to make it feel more punitive. This flips the bird to the regulatory body, and discourages people from switching. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t make it higher.
deleted by creator
Except they are not forcing you to pay. You can still use it as it is right now.
OK, but do I get a blue tick?
You can wear a dunce cap for free.
I’m thinking $4.99 for the DunceCap* premium filter
one-time use only, usage of filter gives consent in perpetuity, with no restrictions, for Meta to scan your entire disgusting naked body for usage in Meta’s upcoming “MoleCheck” biometric security login feature*
**Usage of MoleCheck grants Meta perpetual license with no restrictions to train its “Dr. ZuckCancer” AI (not a real doctor) on your disgusting naked body and to withhold any cancer diagnosis Dr. ZuckCancer (not a real doctor) might find if you have not paid your monthly subscription to “MetaMedical”, a real bargain at only $350/week! Remember, choose MetaMedical, because “You Might as Well, We Already Have Your Medical Records Anyway!”
Why would paid users need to compensate for free users? This is a per user choice between ad personalization or a monthly fee. The “free” users will still be generating revenue the existing way.
deleted by creator
The paid version is ad-free.
The free version still has all the ads.
Both will generate revenue.
Add an extra 0 if reddit API stuff was any indication
Meta received about 4-5$ per user per month, so the Zuck is pulling everyone’s legs here.
Edit: 3-4$.
The users willing to pay are the most valuable users on the platform for advertisers because they are, let me consult my notes… willing to pay for things.
The logical conclusion is you must charge more for users to not get ads than your average revenue per user from ads or you end up losing money because the quality of your non paying users has taken a nose dive.
And then you lose the entire community, because of the sheer drop of the population. You can’t run a social media platform with just “whales”.
This guy businesses
Lol, thanks for helping convince all my relatives and friends to finally leave Facebook then, Facebook. Couldn’t think of a better incentive myself.
don’t worry, they’ll just agree to the profiling.
At first I was like hell yeah finally the corrupt politicians in my country will end. Then I read your comment and saw the dry old boney finger clicking the blue button instead of the small text just to get the pop-up gone
All that’s going to do is incentivize a federated alternative.
“It’s free and always will be”
So your personal data is essentially worth about $14 a month.
You are worth about $200 a year to advertising companies per service. What a scam.
Can I just start selling my own data on the internet for a subscription fee? Might as well capitalize on my boring lige.
