HS.fi had an article (in Finnish) about this today that said how it won't even increase privacy because the terms of service are completely unchanged and they'll want to keep collecting that data in case you stop paying for the ad-free version. The data they collect on you just won't be used to show you targeted ads while you pay.
Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#12[dead]
"a shocking infringement": services cost money. Building and operating a thing like fb / instagram / whatsapp is extremely expensive.
Not sure why EU is entitled to Meta's charity. They currently pay for the service via ads and data; they're now being allowed to choose to pay via ads/data or pay via subs.
If this is ruled illegal, the almost certain next step is everyone pays a fee or no / minimal use of the services allowed.
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#13[dead]
German newspapers do the same thing. Süddeutsche Zeitung's welcoming message asks you to choose between cookies + ads or a subscription.
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#14Wait..I thought this charge is for removing ads, not actually adding privacy.
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#15[dead]
> it's a shocking infringement This is wanting one’s cake and eating it too. Facebook makes a product. Users use it. In the past, people reasonably complained that there was no way to pay without compromising one’s privacy. Now there is. (I want enforcement to confirm that those paying are not being tracked. But given that constitutes fraud, it will be enforced.) Rejecting tracking and paying is like rejecting ad-cor…
This is a product for advertisers, not users. The users are just corralled into the consuming the feed.
And paying for a service does not mean that the relationship is not abusive. Meta would be happy to collect both money and data from all parties.
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#16Does that "privacy" include not tracking outside FB and the correlation / profiling they are already doing?
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#17> In effect, users are expected to pay up to €228 a year to preserve their fundamental right to privacy
No, they are expected to pay that to use services offered by Meta. I don't see the same people complaining that you need to pay Starbucks $5 for the "fundamental right to coffee".
Pay money to use the services, or pay via watching ads, or delete the app. This expectation that everything on the internet needs to be free with no strings attached is laughably naive.
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#18What guarantees are there that they don't still include your data in their analysis? For example clustering of individuals to find marketable cohorts?
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#19But does this mean ad free? If so, worth it for any real users.
This article is unclear on whether it's ad-free, but it does seem like it would be from wired
> Meta is about to roll out ad-free subscriptions on Instagram and Facebook
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-pay-for-privacy-eu...
Re: Meta Now Charges $200 Annually for Privacy – A High Cost for User Data Security
#20But does this mean ad free? If so, worth it for any real users.
Is it worth it? What's a "real" user?
I don't think I've ever had $200 of value out of a social media site when I compare it to, say, Netflix during its prime, or YouTube Premium, both of which are in the same ballpark. Do people spend hours a day on Facebook and feel like they got good value out (I don't mean scrolling that people regret and would rather quit).
Now for communication I can understand the value, but I don't think Messenger or WhatsApp are ad supported directly like this so I would assume aren't covered by the subscription?