[_trackno5]

New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative. That’s why they are doing this.

Meta’s revenue per user is around 40 USD iirc.

Tbf, as much as people like whining they definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram. People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily.

The reality is that this move will just prove that people like to talk but they are not willing to pay for their “freedom”.

[meiraleal]

> People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily.

people will easily spend no time there too if their algorithms weren't tuned to be addicted. Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing - but those companies will spend billions of dollars and use their brainwashing algorithms to prevent that.

The brainwashing is so strong that it goes out of the social media border and overflow to every corner of the web, including HN. But fear no, _tracno5, we don't NEED Meta.

[_trackno5]

Sure you don’t NEED meta. But it still offers value to their users. Regardless of their “addictive” design, you can’t deny that people want what they (and other social media) offer.

It would be absurd to say they don’t add any value to people’s lives.

We’re not talking about heroin here. You can always just delete all your accounts and live an unplugged life.

And now you have an option to get all the upsides of social media minus the downsides of being tracked/advertised for less than the price of a pizza

[qeternity]

> Which can easily be decided to be illegal in many countries based on the current laws already existing

Sorry which laws are those?

And for the billions of people with free will who use these services, you know what's better for them than they do?

[meiraleal]

> Sorry which laws are those?

In Brazil, false advertising is a crime (and I guess in many other countries). At least for me when I used instagram, 95% of the ads served were scam. The people buying the ads are criminals, the people selling too.

[ralferoo]

> Tbf, as much as people like whining they definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram. People will easily spend 4-6h on social media daily.

I read this kind of argument regularly to justify any subscription service, and simply, it's bogus. Maybe you, as the commenter might feel you get $12 per month worth of entertainment or spend 4-6h on the site daily, but that's simply not true for everyone.

I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago, so it's value to me is exactly $0 per month, but I've seen this argument made for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, etc, none of which I have a subscription for. Now, all of those I perhaps would get some value from, but less than the minimum subscription value.

Currently, I can still enjoy Youtube for free, but their recent push to make advertising far more obnoxious will probably push me away entirely. When that day happens, even though I enjoy watching Youtube occasionally, it's simply not worth the price of the minimum subscription, so I will just stop using it. It's actually already pretty close to that point for me - recently, adverts seem to be far more frequent than before and I've noticed a few occasions when I've had two back-to-back 30-second un-skippable adverts every 5-10 minutes. When these tactics eventually force me off the platform, their revenue from me will go from a little per month from ad revenue to $0 per month.

[qeternity]

> I deleted my facebook account over a decade ago

Obviously implicit in GP comment is that _people who use these services_ derive great value from them.

Nobody expects someone who deleted their account to think $12 is a reasonable price.

[ralferoo]

That's why I continued talking about another service that I do use that is trying a similar move at a similar price point.

The point is that the poster I was replying to believes that because they think it's good value at $12 per month, it's necessarily the same for everybody. It isn't.

[_trackno5]

I’m not saying I believe $12 is good value. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s just a fact.

Similar forms of entertainment cost the same.

You’re the one with the subjective opinion here because you personally don’t see value in it and make the assumption that is the absolute truth

[virgilp]

How is it a fact? I would argue that most people derive negative value out of Facebook. Is $150 per gram of cocaine "good value" just because some people enjoy it and come back to it?

[j4yav]

I had a Facebook account today, it definitely wasn't worth $12 in entertainment per month so I deleted it.

[ralferoo]

> You’re the one with the subjective opinion here because you personally don’t see value in it and make the assumption that is the absolute truth

I think you need to stop spending so much time on Facebook, and spend a bit more time reading a dictionary.

You firstly made an assertion that "they [in this context, everyone who is whining that it's too expensive] definitely get 12 bucks a month worth of entertainment off of Facebook and Instagram".

You secondly state that "I’m not saying I believe $12 is good value. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s just a fact."

Both of these are subjective opinion, because it's what you believe and while some will agree with you, there are others who disagree with you.

You accuse me of making the assumption that what I'm saying is absolute truth, which is weird, because that's exactly what you were doing in your argument.

Read again what I wrote: "Maybe you, as the commenter might feel you get $12 per month worth of entertainment or spend 4-6h on the site daily, but that's simply not true for everyone."

That's not making any claim of absolute truth, rather it's saying that your claim that it's good value for everybody is false. And it's obviously false, because there's at least one person for who it isn't true.

[6510]

> ad-free alternative.

ha-ha, if only! Your advert slots will just be filled with generic adverts. (Think big brands/dumb ads/tv ads)

[wcoenen]

While the EU regulation allows for that, that's not what Meta is offering. Meta is offering paid, ad-free access to facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/10/facebook-and-instagram-to-...

[weberer]

>New EU regulation is forcing Meta to offer users an ad-free alternative

Which regulation is that?

[_trackno5]

Here you go: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-de...

[dcminter]

That is not what that says. You're conflating ad-free with no ads based on tracking.

[_trackno5]

I am not. The EU’s move is to force Meta to stop personalised ads and Meta is pushing for an ad-free option. That’s an attempt to appease the regulators and keep their business model.

They’ll make the argument that the customer has a reasonable choice: see targeted ads or pay for the service.

I’m betting They’ll follow up saying the business model in the EU will not be viable without personalised ads (which it really probably won’t) and that they’ll consider leaving the EU altogether. Then the EU can have fun figuring out what will be the economic impact for its economy after they get cut off the largest social network

Meta has ditched Canadian news already. If the finances don’t make sense in the EU, I won’t be surprised they just ditch it

[dcminter]

You did, and now you're incorrectly claiming that the EU is forcing Meta to stop personalised ads. They're not. They're only forcing Meta to obtain user consent.

The means by which Meta is doing that are scummy and hopefully will still prove to be illegal, but none of that is the EU's doing.

I'd be surprised if there was much, if any, fallout from the disappearence of Meta from the EU space. Not that I hold out any hope of it.

[nerdbert]

> I'd be surprised if there was much, if any, fallout from the disappearence of Meta from the EU space.

One sure exception would be Whatsapp. It's really baked into society in many countries, including here in the Netherlands where it's the normal mode for most person-to-person communication, including customer-business contacts.

[oytis]

> The means by which Meta is doing that are scummy and hopefully will still prove to be illegal, but none of that is the EU's doing.

This is what many established media in Germany are doing. Either pay to read without data collection, or read for free and be tracked. No lawsuits so far - which doesn't necessarily mean they won't follow of course.

[nerdbert]

How much can Meta ditch before its all-important network effect starts to implode?

Threads hasn't really gotten off the ground, and I'd say a good part of the reason why is that it excludes the EU, which is full of very online-engaged people.