But will they stop tracking and cross tracking your every move across the web? Because with all the paid options these sites offer I don’t really see a mention of not tracking you. Same back then when Reddit was still alive for me, for the sub they only stopped showing you ads but there was no mention of tracking.
I mean I won’t pay for Facebook ad-free thingy, I only go on the website 2-3 times a month so I could care less.
Facebook also tracks people that don’t have a Facebook (meta) account. So paying for an add free experience only counts for Facebook itself… and is a bullshit money grab.
so I could care less
So you do care?
deleted by creator
I’d heard the original saying was “I could care less, but I’d have to try.” Implying it would take effort which you weren’t going to do because that’s how little you cared.
That saying has no attestation anywhere, apparently.
Well I could care fewer!
Interesting read though. Guess I’ll have to stop chiming in on threads like that from now on. I shall endeavor to get smug satisfaction elsewhere.
you’re wrong but I couldn’t care less
If micropayments were a thing would you do it for that? I would.
Except you don’t get your privacy back. AFAIK the subscription model is only to remove ads.
That would be pointless. They introduced this in response to the EU not considering just mentioning the tracking in the T&C. You need to give informed and freely given consent to tracking. You cannot say “you can only access this service if you consent to being tracked”, you have to give an alternative. This paid subscription is meant as the alternative.
So the goal of this subscription is not to get people to subscribe, but to give people a tracking-free option so they can keep tracking them with the free tier.
It’s not buying privacy though. It seems to be just buying the removal of targeted advertisements, which could mean just the display of these adverts. All the tracking could still be happening. Is there any wording associated with this that indicates Facebook does not plan to track users who pay?
Paying… for… FB or Instagram… loool
So if I want both web and phone blocked it’s over $20 a month? Nope. Just don’t use it.
No, I don’t think so, two different price because AppStore and PlayStore take cut around 30% when you purchase through them. Meta is passing Apple and Google tax to costumers if they choose.
The point I’m trying to make is that I have to buy both?
I think you should read the article
Regardless of where a user makes the purchase, the subscription will apply to all linked Facebook and Instagram accounts in a user’s Accounts Center
I did and missed that thank you.
Why would anyone pay extra 2 €/month for what is basically minor one-time convenience?
One reason is because Apple and Google make canceling monthly renewal easy, but mostly because people aren’t aware they can get better deal in web. It against Apple and Google ToS for an app to redirect their user to website for payment.
My main question, that I admittedly haven’t been arsed to look for an answer to, is; would subscribers still have the same algorithms as non-subscribers controlling what ‘content is surfaced’ to them? Since it’s been kinda optimised for engagement and advertising for sometime… If that makes sense…
How about…no. kthnxbye.
It would be ok if Facebook wasn’t a toxic platform and if your data privacy was guaranteed.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
From November, it will be possible to pay Meta to stop shoveling ads in your Instagram or Facebook feeds and slurping your data for marketing purposes so long as you live in the EU, EEA, or Switzerland.
The higher price for iOS and Android is blamed on the cut Apple and Google demand for purchases.
As for why the company is doing this, it all comes down to the rulings of European regulators, who have been cranking up the pressure on how social media outlets use personal data.
The company said: “In its ruling, the CJEU [Court of Justice of the European Union] expressly recognized that a subscription model, like the one we are announcing, is a valid form of consent for an ads funded service.”
Meta is expecting a substantial amount of cash from users for not slurping their data for marketing purposes, which seems to be at odds with the spirit of rulings from regulators, if not some of the actual words.
The company said: “We’re continuing to explore how to provide teens with a useful and responsible ad experience given this evolving regulatory landscape.”
The original article contains 549 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
