Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 533 posts

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#461

Post by fsflover »

joenot443 wrote: post #400
fsflover wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is the only connection left with lots of my friends now as we are scattered around the world Time to suggest them to join Mastodon and Pixelfed? Relying on a foreign, for-profit megacorp is a bad way to keep contact with friends.

Have you had much success migrating entire friend groups over to platforms they’ve never heard of? I think insisting on using weird products nobody in the real world knows about is a “bad way to keep contact with friends”

I didn't succeed in moving entire friend groups. But I did move some friends, which is good enough.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#462

Post by everdrive »

qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

I think given that meta has already sort of destroyed so many things, it's difficult to see this measure causing any _harm_. I'm not sure it's a panacea, as since you said meta will just take your money and track you. But the "tracking you ship" has already sailed. Maybe in a perfect world the "taking your money" bit is successful enough that they try to make that experience better? Ideally, meta would just take 100% of its intellectual assets and pay to have them subducted by the Mariana Trench, but I don't think that'll be happening for me.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#463

Post by HWR_14 »

bko wrote: post #419
akdev1l wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ah, you must be one of those that cuts his own hair, shops strictly at thrift shops and wears bags as shoes.

I mean, people who say "why would I want status symbols" tend to not purchase designer clothes and $500 hair cuts. Because those are status symbols.

But bags as shoes is impractical. You want a sole to protect your feet.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#464

Post by kigiri »

nkotov wrote: post #456

I would be willing to pay for IG subscription that's ad-free. It's gotten hilariously terrible right now that every 3-4 stories has a 2-page ad with a button on it. It's gotten so bad to the point where I stopped checking stories.

it's possible in europe: https://help.instagram.com/923021729404927/?helpref=uf_perma...

Subscribe on Facebook.com or Instagram.com: €5.99 per month for one account, plus €4 per month (or price in applicable local currency) for each additional account in the same Accounts Center

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#466

Post by ttctciyf »

douglee650 wrote: post #455
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 part…

I pay YouTube Premium and get no ads there. It's totally worth it for me. I get that they aren't performing less tracking on me, and they've labeled me as "will pay subscriptions for stuff". But I get so much out of YouTube that's it's a no-brainer.

You can accomplish "no ads" and arguably substantially less tracking without Premium, though, with (e.g.) firefox and ublock origin. The only downside is an occasional ignorable warning that you're "seeing interruptions".

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#467

Post by jwr »

dabedee wrote: post #335

It's very difficult to do business in Western Europe without Whatsapp. I have probably asked more than 60 people to switch to Signal and the social burden it introduces (i.e. asking a new acquaintance to install a new app) can have negative signalling effects (e.g. you don't adapt, create more work, why do you care so much about privacy, etc.) I personally abhore Facebook (and IG,Whatsapp) and don't want to use any o…

In Central Europe (Poland), too.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, realizes that using Whatsapp by default (which everyone accepts) synchronizes their entire contacts list to Meta. It's a golden trove of valuable data for an ad targeting company.

People don't realize that there is so much that can be inferred about you from your contacts. Whether you have kids, which schools they go to, and similar personal information.

All of this is not even on the radar and people reduce privacy to "whether someone listens in on my calls or conversations" and tend to brush it off, because they honestly don't care about that part.

Signal doesn't make it easier by refusing to allow encrypted iCloud backups for so many years (which means people lose data when they lose their phones!) and recently introducing a subscription backup service instead of allowing me to do an encrypted iCloud backup. It's hard to explain to people that they should use an inferior product just because of "privacy".

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#468

Post by HWR_14 »

bko wrote: post #418
renegade-otter wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want to signal that? It relates in no way as to what kind of person you are. In fact, the richer you are, the more questions I have about how you got it and who got shafted along the way.

> In fact, the richer you are, the more questions I have about how you got it and who got shafted along the way. What a sad way to live life. Not only because it's untrue (assuming you don't live in North Korea), but it's incredibly dark and destructive.

This does not answer the question that was asked (and which I also wonder): why would you want to signal that you are rich?

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#469

Post by MajorTakeaway »

ksd482 wrote: post #179
jmspring wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, pay them to keep doing what they already do?

Yes. The difference is now the money is coming from you rather than selling your data. Which is what you want. Of course, they could still sell your data anyway. That's why it's important to pay attention to their T&C.

The only real way to opt out is to not use 'the product'.

I miss the days where 'the product' is only what we got, and not being the victim of an executives stalking campaign.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#470

Post by fragmede »

ttctciyf wrote: post #466
douglee650 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay YouTube Premium and get no ads there. It's totally worth it for me. I get that they aren't performing less tracking on me, and they've labeled me as "will pay subscriptions for stuff". But I get so much out of YouTube that's it's a no-brainer.

You can accomplish "no ads" and arguably substantially less tracking without Premium, though, with (e.g.) firefox and ublock origin. The only downside is an occasional ignorable warning that you're "seeing interruptions".

How does that get money to the people making the videos I like watching?
Post reply on HN