7 ms·

Facebook and Instagram to Offer Subscription for No Ads in Europe

75 points by nicovank 3y ago

Tangokat 3y ago
Great news but the 10 euro per month price is completely insane right? Feels like they want to prove to regulators that nobody wants to pay this..?
- paxys 3y ago
  Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.
  - andybak 3y ago
    See my comment above for why I didn't subscribe to YouTube premium. Interesting to see you've reached a very different conclusion.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      In addition, YouTube doesn't remove the ads that are baked into the video stream itself. At the end of the day, you are paying 10 USD+ per month for an "ad-free experience", and still get ads because YouTube doesn't keep its promises. And there is no excuse for that, content creators could mark when sponsored segments are starting and ending, and YouTube could skip them.
      - coldpie 3y ago
        Those are not YouTube ads. YouTube doesn't receive any money from them.
        rvnx 3y ago
        So, what's the issue here? When you subscribe to YouTube for ad-free content, you're essentially paying for an uninterrupted viewing experience. This is similar to how you'd expect no ads when you pay for a service like Netflix. For example, imagine watching "The Matrix" on Netflix and being unexpectedly interrupted by an Oreo commercial—it would be frustrating, especially since you paid for an ad-free experience. The issue with YouTube is that if they were to remove baked-in in-stream ads for Premium users, it might require them to compensate content creators more indirectly, which in turn could reduce Google's profits. This creates a financial disincentive for YouTube to fully eliminate ads. As a result, you might find be better if you use software like SponsorBlock. This situation is paradoxical; ideally, paying customers should receive the best user experience directly from the platform, and be rewarded for that. Technically, there is no limitation, LinusTechTips can perfectly take 1 minute to add a marker for its sponsored segments, at the moment he ticks "This video contains sponsored content". A more truthful description for YouTube Premium could be: "Pay 10 USD / month, to remove a lot of, but not all the ads", and then you understand it's not that of a good deal.
        coldpie 3y ago
        > You pay YouTube to provide you ad-free content No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads. > Wouldn't you get upset if Netflix is streaming to you "The Matrix", and in the middle of it there is an advertising for Oreos? If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix.
        rvnx 3y ago
        > No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads. When you use YouTube Premium, you are paying the creator for each view, and they still show you the ads, and you find it acceptable ? > If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix. Sounds like you agree to pay for Spotify Premium but still get interruptions in the music.
      - yoyohello13 3y ago
        In those cases, 100% of that add revenue is going to the content creator so it doesn't bother me as much.
        munk-a 3y ago
        Also, Sponsorblock exists.
    - yoyohello13 3y ago
      I use so much YouTube, the bundling didn't bother me. I didn't initially care about YouTube Music, but after giving it a try I find it better than Spotify for my purposes anyway so it worked out.
    - gorkish 3y ago
      Youtube's relationship with the music industry has led to this weird situation where they basically cannot separate the licensing concerns, hence the pack-in of the music service. I respect that you want to dig your heels in on some weird principle of not paying for something twice, but on a pure time-value-of-money basis, pretty much any music or video streaming service is worth the subscription if you use it more than a couple of hours each month.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    I'd pay 5.5 for a delicious latte that will push me through my day, produced by a shop that cares about quality and that I also want to stay in business. There's a lot of strings attached to the price tag. Facebook and Instagram are none of that.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Isn't that comparable to other media sites?
- sophiebits 3y ago
  Meta Q3 ’23 ARPU for Europe was $19.04 per quarter. (Or $56.11 in US and Canada!) Factoring that people willing to pay probably skew wealthier probably skew more profitable, $10 seems about right.
  - polonbike 3y ago
    19$ ARPU vs 10$/month is a big difference at the end of the year !
    - dfadsadsf 3y ago
      It's per Q so ~80/years. Difference between $80 (average ad revenue per year) vs $120 per year subscription is reasonable as subscriptions skew power users.
    - mardef 3y ago
      $19 is quarterly, so $76/year vs $120/year. But that $19 is for an average user. Paying users will presumably be your most engaged users that probably generate much more than that
  - garblegarble 3y ago
    Wouldn't you also need to factor in that the people who will pay to avoid ads are likely already using ad blockers (or hate ads, in which case showing them an ad for your product is likely counter-productive)?
    - raydev 3y ago
      Specifically for Instagram, the number of well-monied native app users probably drowns out the well-monied exclusive-web audience. So no need to factor in the adblocker people.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vasco 3y ago
    ARPU is an average so it includes every user, including users that never buy anything from an ad because they can't afford it. The average goes up a lot due to a minority of wealthy users. Those users will also be more likely to pay to remove ads. So Meta is afraid that the ad revenue will go down a lot and that's why they increase the monthly subscription by more than the current ARPU. This is similar to collective insurance. If the rich people all self-insure and remove themselves from the pool, the viability of the collective insurance gets risked because you're only left off with the people that actually need help and nobody with a surplus to share. For ads you get left off with a cohort of users that can't afford to pay to remove ads so can't also afford to pay for stuff advertised in said ads. Which means the ads will become more like TV ads for awareness rather than direct purchase, which will lower ad-based ARPU.
- baby 3y ago
  Do you know how much I pay not to see ads on youtube? That one is insane
- janejeon 3y ago
  > completely insane right? Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    Wouldn't that mean that Facebook could charge a lower ad-subsidized price? Facebook earns 18/user*year - so 10/month is adding a 100$ surcharge to not see ads. If they offered an ad laden service for 8/mo and the ad-free experience for 10/mo that'd line up with your logic.
Zambyte 3y ago
Offer chronological feeds of only people you follow, then they might becoming interesting.
- internetter 3y ago
  I can’t speak for Facebook, but instagram already offers this (click the logo in the top left). Would be nice to get it as a default, however
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    That's good. They added that after I stopped using Instagram from the looks of it. I couldn't stand the political reactionism that was being forced down my throat, so I have up on it. I still won't use it for other political reasons, but at least it seems like the app isn't unusable anymore.
- hi5eyes 3y ago
  web version offers this no? the app is only good for group chats or mindless reels scrolling
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    I don't know
- mjamesaustin 3y ago
  This is why the model is doomed. Even if they offer a subscription service, the platform is still built to serve ads, along with all of the user hostile behavior that made Facebook horrible. Imagine how different things would look if Facebook adopted a subscription model early on before they became an ad-infested pile of garbage.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  It already exists, although it's kinda hidden.
seydor 3y ago
People are addicted to free, but they should be paying for something that they spend so much time on. But then again it is sad to see that people are actually willing to pay for such kind of content.
- andybak 3y ago
  I'd love to pay for YouTube but they insist on bundling it with YouTube Music and I already pay for Spotify. Now maybe they are giving me YouTube Music for free and the price would be the same without it - but it doesn't feel that way and it's enough to make me not subscribe. This kind of shenanigans is enough to drive me and probably many others away. It's £12.99/month. Would I pay that if the bundling had never been offerered? It feels quite high - I've hit my limit of streaming services I'm prepared to pay for at the moment. I'd probably pay half that for ad-free YouTube. Surprisingly (to me at least) I'm actually finding enough good content on TikTok to make up for the fact that I can't block ads on YouTube any more. Thus the great cycle of enshittification continues.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Just get a VPN and get the Turkish or Argentinan premium.
    - ivanmontillam 3y ago
      Please don't, with enough people cheating it this way, that will destroy my ability to use international cards. Google will start checking card procedence to prevent people from taking regional discounts. I cannot use local cards because of banking issues
  - Moru 3y ago
    On the other hand, is this how much your personal data is worth to Facebook to sell? Do they really make £12.99/month/person on advertisement? Has to be more lucrative than I thought.
    - 3y ago
m348e912 3y ago
Ads aren't the problem with facebook. It's the crappy UI that makes most posts and comment threads unreadable and videos unwatchable. Remember when clicking close or maximize on a video would actually close or maximize a video? I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Everyone uses it on mobile presumably
- gorkish 3y ago
  > I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive. It's quite simple. You are not the customer; you are the product. The UI/UX for marketers is quite polished. The UI/UX for the users is as twisted as it needs to be to keep you around. It's like giving your dog one of those bowls that forces them to eat slower.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- basisword 3y ago
  My problem with Facebook is that everyone has stopped posting. Only 2 of my ~100 friends posts regularly anymore. This leads Facebook to polluting my News Feed with very very low quality “suggested posts”. It’s awful content.
- RichardCA 3y ago
  When they introduced ads (2012 I think), they also removed the ability see a feed that was a direct reflection of your social graph. They also jumbled the feed so you can never return to the last thing you were looking at, unless you explicitly "Like" it and then fish through your Activity history. If I had any assureance they would revert to the pre-2012 UI/UX I'd be tempted by this offer, but I'm not in the EU so it doesn't matter to me.
throwaway22032 3y ago
I would gladly pay for a version of Instagram without adverts but I don't see how it's possible. They can eliminate the "sponsored posts" but the algorithm is still going to recommend to me all sorts of poisonous stuff for engagement. That's the real problem that I'd like to pay away - just leave me with what I follow and nothing else.
- munk-a 3y ago
  Yeah... Instagram is sort of a lost cause at this point. I think you're better off just finding a different service.
- wg0 3y ago
  What I think is going to happen - if interest rates persist and wars keep on waging, that you'll pay the subscription but you'll still see the ads and if you want not to see the ads AT ALL then you'll have to pay for some premium tier or something.
paxys 3y ago
Watch all the people who have been clamoring for a paid ad-free version of their favorite services turn around and... not pay for this.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  Visit Twitter and you'll certainly see people who paid there.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Paying for Twitter doesn't remove ads. People are subscribing for the blue check mark.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Really?? That's crazy
      - olivermuty 3y ago
        Its even worse. Revenue payout for creators is based on impressions of ads towards the paying users. Meaning there is incentive to show even more ads to the ones who pay. Elon is genuising twitter very hard :D
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Some people do have a legit need for some level of verification. However, I also find a surprising number of people who seem to be quite deeply invested in the status, for lack of a better word. This really started pre-Musk when a blue checkmark theoretically meant you were notable (on some axis).
        coldpie 3y ago
        > Some people do have a legit need for some level of verification. AFAIK there is no verification involved in the blue check purchase. It just indicates that the account holder pays some money every month.
csmarshall 3y ago
Anyone figured out how to buy this in the states? I'd love to gift ad free versions of Facebook to...certain family members for the holidays.
- lawlessone 3y ago
  Ads would also include ads for racist conspiracy theory stuff, questionable election ads, questionable natural health ads and multilevel marketing. It would be a good gift for older people that tend to click their way to malware.
  - solardev 3y ago
    They'd probably ask you to stop because they miss the juicy stuff, you know, the real news
- stinos 3y ago
  Give them uBlock Origin? It's free, and as far as I'm aware removes (as in: makes them invisible) all FB ads including the sponsored posts or whatever it's called in the timeline. Technically not the exact same thing as not being served ads in the first place (which presumably is what you'd be paying for), but still, worth it.
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
I wonder if you pay for this, will they still be doing all their shady surveillance stuff on you?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Of course they will. Paying for this scam will only increase the value of your attention and the value of the personal information they sell. Demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay extortion fees not to be bothered will only make them advertise to you even more.
janejeon 3y ago
I think that no matter how people feel about the whole privacy/ad thing, it's an additional option... and I think everybody is better off having an additional option than not.
nymalt 3y ago
Wondering if this is going to make Threads availble in Europe.
wg0 3y ago
Fair proposition I guess. Privacy is important but leaves the question - how to fund the platform which isn't cheap to operate for sure. Not a fan boy at all, far from it but have to hand it to the self driving batteries on the wheels guy - he did it with twitter and then others are moving in that direction it seems.
alex_young 3y ago
This is hostage negotiation, not a reasonable price. The revenue per user comparisons are absurd. What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention. Facebook used network effects to monopolize its audience and then switched them to ad consumers when they had the eyeballs. There is no way to launch such an ad heavy service in an upfront way.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention. YES. Our attention is ours. It's not theirs to sell off to the highest bidder. It's part of our cognitive functions and as such it's inalienable. It's straight up offensive that they think they're doing us a favor by not advertising to us. Truth is advertising should be illegal.
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Seems like a true consent based "Reject all" button is a critical danger to Facebook's business model. Other articles [1] report they are currently in violation of GDPR rights in Europe. > The move follows years of privacy litigation, enforcements and court rulings in the EU — which have culminated in a situation where Meta can no longer claim a contractual right (nor legitimate interest) to track and profile users for ad targeting. (Although, at the time of writing, it is still doing the latter — meaning it is technically operating without a proper legal basis. But this summer Meta announced an intention to switch to consent.) > [...] > As we reported earlier this month, Meta is relying on a line in a ruling handed down by the bloc’s top court, the CJEU, earlier this year — where the judges allowed the possibility — caveated with “if necessary” — of an (another caveat) “appropriate fee” being charged for an equivalent alternative service (i.e. that lacks tracking and profiling). So the legal fight against Meta’s continued tracking and profiling of users will hinge on what’s necessary and appropriate in this context. Typical shady Facebook behavior trying to force everyone to press "Accept all" since otherwise their business model is broken. Hopefully the EU will move quickly to close the legal loophole they are trying to exploit. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/30/meta-ad-free-sub-eu/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/30/meta-ad-free-sub-eu/
imiric 3y ago
Great. Now people can pay FB to not see any ads, while FB will still collect their data and sell it to data brokers. All social media sites should pay users to use their services in exchange for their data. The cost of them providing a service pales in comparison to the value of user data. And there's no way they're giving up that lucrative part of their business. Make no mistake. This is not some benevolent side of FB where they're seeing the evil of their ways. This is just a marketing tactic to attract more users they can exploit.
- space_fountain 3y ago
  FB does not sell to data brokers and because fb is a public company when know exactly how much they profit from user data. Overall FB made about $3.22 per user and the vast majority of that came from selling ads.
  - imiric 3y ago
    > FB does not sell to data brokers Source? It doesn't have to sell to them directly. They can get it from their API. > Overall FB made about $3.22 per user It's much higher than that in the EU and US[1]. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
    - space_fountain 3y ago
      Here, there are other sources, but from the horses mouth https://m.facebook.com/help/152637448140583 https://m.facebook.com/help/152637448140583. And that was revenue not profit. FB makes roughly 30% profits so maybe 15 dollars a year for the US?
    - rapsin4 3y ago
      You have no idea what you're talking about lol... Facebook or Google does not sell your data. It's literally against their own interests to, even if you think they're completely evil... Them and Google have a data monopoly, why the heck would they ever sell that monopoly? They'll charge to have access through their ad platforms, but would never sell it, even if it were legal... There's FTC, and EU regulations that govern big tech... I'd except better from Hacker News Readers...
londons_explore 3y ago
Facebook will try and get you to choose between personalized ads and payment for no ads. However, the EU requires a third option: Unpersonalized ads. Facebook can't require you to pay money to have them not analyze what you do and profile you to get more money out of ads. And everyone knows that personalized ads are worth 10x more than Unpersonalized ones.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Yes, it is a blatant GDPR violation. But the problem is that a bunch of EU countries have been letting their local newspapers run the same "a subscription or consent to personalize ads" playbook from day 1 of GDPR, with no consequences for 5 years. And there is going to be a paper trail on that, whether it is newspapers that got this approved with their DPAs or it was "just" that the DPAs have been silently burying the user complaints rather than acting on them. It's going to be quite hard for those DPAs to apply a different policy to Facebook.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nologic01 3y ago
Would be interesting to see a "price" for users actually being shown generic ads but with absolutely no profiling or other "personalized" experience. I would never trust that entity anyway, even if they offered it, but curious what fraction of their haul is really the surveillance and behavioral profiling part as distinct from the placing-ads-on-a-surface part (which is how newspapers, TV and billboards operated forever). The economics of ad-supported but non-tracking platforms is an important parameter as we contemplate what options do we have for less evil online platforms.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are the only major sites that are able to circumvent my adblocker. Between the three of them, YouTube provides an incredibly high value for the price they charge, while the other two are of limited benefit in comparison. Facebook has also declined greatly in the past couple of years, while YouTube has improved greatly.
bluish29 3y ago
They still did not say that they will not collect data and use it for non ad-targetting purpose like training their AI. Also will this actually improve the experince or the timeline will still be dominated by “suggested for you” and “more like that”.. etc?
gausswho 3y ago
The sting in the tail here: you will not be advertised to, but only as long as you remain subscribed. Your behaviors are still collected while paying ransom, and once you stop paying, as a self-identified high-value ad target, you can expect to be a roast on a spit.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Ads are only one annoyance. What about the surveillance and data collection (user data, metadata, telemetry, etc.). Do the subscription terms prohibit FB/IG from collecting data or limit what Meta and subsidiaries can do with collected data.

75 points by nicovank 3y ago

Great news but the 10 euro per month price is completely insane right? Feels like they want to prove to regulators that nobody wants to pay this..?

paxys 3y ago
Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.
- andybak 3y ago
  See my comment above for why I didn't subscribe to YouTube premium. Interesting to see you've reached a very different conclusion.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    In addition, YouTube doesn't remove the ads that are baked into the video stream itself. At the end of the day, you are paying 10 USD+ per month for an "ad-free experience", and still get ads because YouTube doesn't keep its promises. And there is no excuse for that, content creators could mark when sponsored segments are starting and ending, and YouTube could skip them.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      Those are not YouTube ads. YouTube doesn't receive any money from them.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        So, what's the issue here? When you subscribe to YouTube for ad-free content, you're essentially paying for an uninterrupted viewing experience. This is similar to how you'd expect no ads when you pay for a service like Netflix. For example, imagine watching "The Matrix" on Netflix and being unexpectedly interrupted by an Oreo commercial—it would be frustrating, especially since you paid for an ad-free experience. The issue with YouTube is that if they were to remove baked-in in-stream ads for Premium users, it might require them to compensate content creators more indirectly, which in turn could reduce Google's profits. This creates a financial disincentive for YouTube to fully eliminate ads. As a result, you might find be better if you use software like SponsorBlock. This situation is paradoxical; ideally, paying customers should receive the best user experience directly from the platform, and be rewarded for that. Technically, there is no limitation, LinusTechTips can perfectly take 1 minute to add a marker for its sponsored segments, at the moment he ticks "This video contains sponsored content". A more truthful description for YouTube Premium could be: "Pay 10 USD / month, to remove a lot of, but not all the ads", and then you understand it's not that of a good deal.
        coldpie 3y ago
        > You pay YouTube to provide you ad-free content No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads. > Wouldn't you get upset if Netflix is streaming to you "The Matrix", and in the middle of it there is an advertising for Oreos? If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix.
        rvnx 3y ago
        > No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads. When you use YouTube Premium, you are paying the creator for each view, and they still show you the ads, and you find it acceptable ? > If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix. Sounds like you agree to pay for Spotify Premium but still get interruptions in the music.
    - yoyohello13 3y ago
      In those cases, 100% of that add revenue is going to the content creator so it doesn't bother me as much.
      - munk-a 3y ago
        Also, Sponsorblock exists.
  - yoyohello13 3y ago
    I use so much YouTube, the bundling didn't bother me. I didn't initially care about YouTube Music, but after giving it a try I find it better than Spotify for my purposes anyway so it worked out.
  - gorkish 3y ago
    Youtube's relationship with the music industry has led to this weird situation where they basically cannot separate the licensing concerns, hence the pack-in of the music service. I respect that you want to dig your heels in on some weird principle of not paying for something twice, but on a pure time-value-of-money basis, pretty much any music or video streaming service is worth the subscription if you use it more than a couple of hours each month.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  I'd pay 5.5 for a delicious latte that will push me through my day, produced by a shop that cares about quality and that I also want to stay in business. There's a lot of strings attached to the price tag. Facebook and Instagram are none of that.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Isn't that comparable to other media sites?
sophiebits 3y ago
Meta Q3 ’23 ARPU for Europe was $19.04 per quarter. (Or $56.11 in US and Canada!) Factoring that people willing to pay probably skew wealthier probably skew more profitable, $10 seems about right.
- polonbike 3y ago
  19$ ARPU vs 10$/month is a big difference at the end of the year !
  - dfadsadsf 3y ago
    It's per Q so ~80/years. Difference between $80 (average ad revenue per year) vs $120 per year subscription is reasonable as subscriptions skew power users.
  - mardef 3y ago
    $19 is quarterly, so $76/year vs $120/year. But that $19 is for an average user. Paying users will presumably be your most engaged users that probably generate much more than that
- garblegarble 3y ago
  Wouldn't you also need to factor in that the people who will pay to avoid ads are likely already using ad blockers (or hate ads, in which case showing them an ad for your product is likely counter-productive)?
  - raydev 3y ago
    Specifically for Instagram, the number of well-monied native app users probably drowns out the well-monied exclusive-web audience. So no need to factor in the adblocker people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vasco 3y ago
  ARPU is an average so it includes every user, including users that never buy anything from an ad because they can't afford it. The average goes up a lot due to a minority of wealthy users. Those users will also be more likely to pay to remove ads. So Meta is afraid that the ad revenue will go down a lot and that's why they increase the monthly subscription by more than the current ARPU. This is similar to collective insurance. If the rich people all self-insure and remove themselves from the pool, the viability of the collective insurance gets risked because you're only left off with the people that actually need help and nobody with a surplus to share. For ads you get left off with a cohort of users that can't afford to pay to remove ads so can't also afford to pay for stuff advertised in said ads. Which means the ads will become more like TV ads for awareness rather than direct purchase, which will lower ad-based ARPU.
baby 3y ago
Do you know how much I pay not to see ads on youtube? That one is insane
janejeon 3y ago
> completely insane right? Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.
- munk-a 3y ago
  Wouldn't that mean that Facebook could charge a lower ad-subsidized price? Facebook earns 18/user*year - so 10/month is adding a 100$ surcharge to not see ads. If they offered an ad laden service for 8/mo and the ad-free experience for 10/mo that'd line up with your logic.

Zambyte 3y ago

Offer chronological feeds of only people you follow, then they might becoming interesting.

internetter 3y ago
I can’t speak for Facebook, but instagram already offers this (click the logo in the top left). Would be nice to get it as a default, however
- Zambyte 3y ago
  That's good. They added that after I stopped using Instagram from the looks of it. I couldn't stand the political reactionism that was being forced down my throat, so I have up on it. I still won't use it for other political reasons, but at least it seems like the app isn't unusable anymore.
hi5eyes 3y ago
web version offers this no? the app is only good for group chats or mindless reels scrolling
- Zambyte 3y ago
  I don't know
mjamesaustin 3y ago
This is why the model is doomed. Even if they offer a subscription service, the platform is still built to serve ads, along with all of the user hostile behavior that made Facebook horrible. Imagine how different things would look if Facebook adopted a subscription model early on before they became an ad-infested pile of garbage.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It already exists, although it's kinda hidden.

seydor 3y ago

People are addicted to free, but they should be paying for something that they spend so much time on. But then again it is sad to see that people are actually willing to pay for such kind of content.

andybak 3y ago
I'd love to pay for YouTube but they insist on bundling it with YouTube Music and I already pay for Spotify. Now maybe they are giving me YouTube Music for free and the price would be the same without it - but it doesn't feel that way and it's enough to make me not subscribe. This kind of shenanigans is enough to drive me and probably many others away. It's £12.99/month. Would I pay that if the bundling had never been offerered? It feels quite high - I've hit my limit of streaming services I'm prepared to pay for at the moment. I'd probably pay half that for ad-free YouTube. Surprisingly (to me at least) I'm actually finding enough good content on TikTok to make up for the fact that I can't block ads on YouTube any more. Thus the great cycle of enshittification continues.
- graphe 3y ago
  Just get a VPN and get the Turkish or Argentinan premium.
  - ivanmontillam 3y ago
    Please don't, with enough people cheating it this way, that will destroy my ability to use international cards. Google will start checking card procedence to prevent people from taking regional discounts. I cannot use local cards because of banking issues
- Moru 3y ago
  On the other hand, is this how much your personal data is worth to Facebook to sell? Do they really make £12.99/month/person on advertisement? Has to be more lucrative than I thought.
  - 3y ago

m348e912 3y ago

Ads aren't the problem with facebook. It's the crappy UI that makes most posts and comment threads unreadable and videos unwatchable. Remember when clicking close or maximize on a video would actually close or maximize a video? I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Everyone uses it on mobile presumably
gorkish 3y ago
> I will never understand how a website/app with such a user-hostile interface can continue to thrive. It's quite simple. You are not the customer; you are the product. The UI/UX for marketers is quite polished. The UI/UX for the users is as twisted as it needs to be to keep you around. It's like giving your dog one of those bowls that forces them to eat slower.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
basisword 3y ago
My problem with Facebook is that everyone has stopped posting. Only 2 of my ~100 friends posts regularly anymore. This leads Facebook to polluting my News Feed with very very low quality “suggested posts”. It’s awful content.
RichardCA 3y ago
When they introduced ads (2012 I think), they also removed the ability see a feed that was a direct reflection of your social graph. They also jumbled the feed so you can never return to the last thing you were looking at, unless you explicitly "Like" it and then fish through your Activity history. If I had any assureance they would revert to the pre-2012 UI/UX I'd be tempted by this offer, but I'm not in the EU so it doesn't matter to me.

throwaway22032 3y ago

I would gladly pay for a version of Instagram without adverts but I don't see how it's possible. They can eliminate the "sponsored posts" but the algorithm is still going to recommend to me all sorts of poisonous stuff for engagement. That's the real problem that I'd like to pay away - just leave me with what I follow and nothing else.

munk-a 3y ago
Yeah... Instagram is sort of a lost cause at this point. I think you're better off just finding a different service.
wg0 3y ago
What I think is going to happen - if interest rates persist and wars keep on waging, that you'll pay the subscription but you'll still see the ads and if you want not to see the ads AT ALL then you'll have to pay for some premium tier or something.

paxys 3y ago

Watch all the people who have been clamoring for a paid ad-free version of their favorite services turn around and... not pay for this.

nitwit005 3y ago
Visit Twitter and you'll certainly see people who paid there.
- paxys 3y ago
  Paying for Twitter doesn't remove ads. People are subscribing for the blue check mark.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Really?? That's crazy
    - olivermuty 3y ago
      Its even worse. Revenue payout for creators is based on impressions of ads towards the paying users. Meaning there is incentive to show even more ads to the ones who pay. Elon is genuising twitter very hard :D
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Some people do have a legit need for some level of verification. However, I also find a surprising number of people who seem to be quite deeply invested in the status, for lack of a better word. This really started pre-Musk when a blue checkmark theoretically meant you were notable (on some axis).
      - coldpie 3y ago
        > Some people do have a legit need for some level of verification. AFAIK there is no verification involved in the blue check purchase. It just indicates that the account holder pays some money every month.

csmarshall 3y ago

Anyone figured out how to buy this in the states? I'd love to gift ad free versions of Facebook to...certain family members for the holidays.

lawlessone 3y ago
Ads would also include ads for racist conspiracy theory stuff, questionable election ads, questionable natural health ads and multilevel marketing. It would be a good gift for older people that tend to click their way to malware.
- solardev 3y ago
  They'd probably ask you to stop because they miss the juicy stuff, you know, the real news
stinos 3y ago
Give them uBlock Origin? It's free, and as far as I'm aware removes (as in: makes them invisible) all FB ads including the sponsored posts or whatever it's called in the timeline. Technically not the exact same thing as not being served ads in the first place (which presumably is what you'd be paying for), but still, worth it.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

I wonder if you pay for this, will they still be doing all their shady surveillance stuff on you?

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Of course they will. Paying for this scam will only increase the value of your attention and the value of the personal information they sell. Demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay extortion fees not to be bothered will only make them advertise to you even more.

janejeon 3y ago

I think that no matter how people feel about the whole privacy/ad thing, it's an additional option... and I think everybody is better off having an additional option than not.

nymalt 3y ago

Wondering if this is going to make Threads availble in Europe.

wg0 3y ago

Fair proposition I guess. Privacy is important but leaves the question - how to fund the platform which isn't cheap to operate for sure. Not a fan boy at all, far from it but have to hand it to the self driving batteries on the wheels guy - he did it with twitter and then others are moving in that direction it seems.

alex_young 3y ago

This is hostage negotiation, not a reasonable price. The revenue per user comparisons are absurd. What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention. Facebook used network effects to monopolize its audience and then switched them to ad consumers when they had the eyeballs. There is no way to launch such an ad heavy service in an upfront way.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> What does it matter what Facebook can sell your attention for? You own your attention. YES. Our attention is ours. It's not theirs to sell off to the highest bidder. It's part of our cognitive functions and as such it's inalienable. It's straight up offensive that they think they're doing us a favor by not advertising to us. Truth is advertising should be illegal.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago

Seems like a true consent based "Reject all" button is a critical danger to Facebook's business model. Other articles [1] report they are currently in violation of GDPR rights in Europe. > The move follows years of privacy litigation, enforcements and court rulings in the EU — which have culminated in a situation where Meta can no longer claim a contractual right (nor legitimate interest) to track and profile users for ad targeting. (Although, at the time of writing, it is still doing the latter — meaning it is technically operating without a proper legal basis. But this summer Meta announced an intention to switch to consent.) > [...] > As we reported earlier this month, Meta is relying on a line in a ruling handed down by the bloc’s top court, the CJEU, earlier this year — where the judges allowed the possibility — caveated with “if necessary” — of an (another caveat) “appropriate fee” being charged for an equivalent alternative service (i.e. that lacks tracking and profiling). So the legal fight against Meta’s continued tracking and profiling of users will hinge on what’s necessary and appropriate in this context. Typical shady Facebook behavior trying to force everyone to press "Accept all" since otherwise their business model is broken. Hopefully the EU will move quickly to close the legal loophole they are trying to exploit. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/30/meta-ad-free-sub-eu/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/30/meta-ad-free-sub-eu/

imiric 3y ago

Great. Now people can pay FB to not see any ads, while FB will still collect their data and sell it to data brokers. All social media sites should pay users to use their services in exchange for their data. The cost of them providing a service pales in comparison to the value of user data. And there's no way they're giving up that lucrative part of their business. Make no mistake. This is not some benevolent side of FB where they're seeing the evil of their ways. This is just a marketing tactic to attract more users they can exploit.

space_fountain 3y ago
FB does not sell to data brokers and because fb is a public company when know exactly how much they profit from user data. Overall FB made about $3.22 per user and the vast majority of that came from selling ads.
- imiric 3y ago
  > FB does not sell to data brokers Source? It doesn't have to sell to them directly. They can get it from their API. > Overall FB made about $3.22 per user It's much higher than that in the EU and US[1]. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
  - space_fountain 3y ago
    Here, there are other sources, but from the horses mouth https://m.facebook.com/help/152637448140583 https://m.facebook.com/help/152637448140583. And that was revenue not profit. FB makes roughly 30% profits so maybe 15 dollars a year for the US?
  - rapsin4 3y ago
    You have no idea what you're talking about lol... Facebook or Google does not sell your data. It's literally against their own interests to, even if you think they're completely evil... Them and Google have a data monopoly, why the heck would they ever sell that monopoly? They'll charge to have access through their ad platforms, but would never sell it, even if it were legal... There's FTC, and EU regulations that govern big tech... I'd except better from Hacker News Readers...

londons_explore 3y ago

Facebook will try and get you to choose between personalized ads and payment for no ads. However, the EU requires a third option: Unpersonalized ads. Facebook can't require you to pay money to have them not analyze what you do and profile you to get more money out of ads. And everyone knows that personalized ads are worth 10x more than Unpersonalized ones.

jsnell 3y ago
Yes, it is a blatant GDPR violation. But the problem is that a bunch of EU countries have been letting their local newspapers run the same "a subscription or consent to personalize ads" playbook from day 1 of GDPR, with no consequences for 5 years. And there is going to be a paper trail on that, whether it is newspapers that got this approved with their DPAs or it was "just" that the DPAs have been silently burying the user complaints rather than acting on them. It's going to be quite hard for those DPAs to apply a different policy to Facebook.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nologic01 3y ago

Would be interesting to see a "price" for users actually being shown generic ads but with absolutely no profiling or other "personalized" experience. I would never trust that entity anyway, even if they offered it, but curious what fraction of their haul is really the surveillance and behavioral profiling part as distinct from the placing-ads-on-a-surface part (which is how newspapers, TV and billboards operated forever). The economics of ad-supported but non-tracking platforms is an important parameter as we contemplate what options do we have for less evil online platforms.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are the only major sites that are able to circumvent my adblocker. Between the three of them, YouTube provides an incredibly high value for the price they charge, while the other two are of limited benefit in comparison. Facebook has also declined greatly in the past couple of years, while YouTube has improved greatly.

bluish29 3y ago

They still did not say that they will not collect data and use it for non ad-targetting purpose like training their AI. Also will this actually improve the experince or the timeline will still be dominated by “suggested for you” and “more like that”.. etc?

gausswho 3y ago

The sting in the tail here: you will not be advertised to, but only as long as you remain subscribed. Your behaviors are still collected while paying ransom, and once you stop paying, as a self-identified high-value ad target, you can expect to be a roast on a spit.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Ads are only one annoyance. What about the surveillance and data collection (user data, metadata, telemetry, etc.). Do the subscription terms prohibit FB/IG from collecting data or limit what Meta and subsidiaries can do with collected data.