Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thenewnewguy 2398 days ago
It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the widespread tracking + use of personal data that large ad networks like facebook perform. That's why they're using the _data protection_ legislature against facebook.
1 comments

Just replace "ads" with "personalized ads" in the parent

FB is free because they can pay for it with personalized ads. I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.

If generic ads can't fund FB, that's FB's problem.

FB does not have some sort of right-to-exist. Beyond that, if FB goes out of business completely, the world is arguably improved.

No, that is the users problem. The users determine if FB has the right to exist, as no one is arguing that any corporate entity simply has the right to exist.

I haven't used FB in years, but even I know that if FB didn't exist that another service would fill the gap in the market. The problem is FB plays fast and loose with privacy and security, which should be the focus of criticism for FB, since that negatively affects users. If FB didn't exist, you still run the risk of another player making the exact same mistakes.

> as no one is arguing that any corporate entity simply has the right to exist

Yes, but I do still see people give the "just don't use FaceBook then" argument on every post about this on HN, as if we should just ignore all the problems. Under this insane framework any horrible behavior by a company towards their customers is justified as long as you use their products willingly.

This also ignores the massive existing adoption FaceBook has. If I want to switch to twitter or mastodon or $otherSocialNetwork I have to convince everyone I communicate with on FaceBook to switch too.

The problem here isn't Facebook (even though it certainly has problems), it's that your preferences do not align with the majority of FB's existing users' preferences for social networks. That's my point - the users dictate what exists on the market, and entrants like Snapchat and TikTok show that it is possible for new social networks to attract users off of Facebook.
Regardless of user demand, many businesses and business models are still illegal by popular acclaim.

User demand is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a business to exist.

Such as?

Existing legality is not necessarily a good cause to dictate if a business should exist or not, as for some markets the law tends to lag society (i.e. federal law and weed dispensaries). This discussion isn't really about legality anyways, it's about market demand.

In this case, you could argue that the "users" is almost equivalent to the people (of EU), because of how widespread the usage of Facebook is. What we see here is that the people is starting to decide that some things that Facebook are doing are not acceptable anymore.
But my company depends on torturing puppies! Your anti-puppy-torture legislation will put me out of business!
> I doubt generic ads would fund the site as it stands today.

Maybe that’s ok.

The reason dumber ads pay so little is because the personalized ones exist. It’s hard to say what dumb ads would be worth if they were the only ads.
If that's actually true, then Facebook is an inherently immoral service that shouldn't exist.
To my knowledge no one asked them to be free.