The system seems to be;
- Add adverts
- Make them more intrusive
- Add more adverts
- Make them even more intrusive
- Everybody is fed up with adverts because there are now more adverts than content, so introduce paid version which costs more than the company would earn on ad impressions even for a heavy user, to remove ads
- Next step might be to add some ads to paid version?
Isn’t this exactly what Netflix is trying to do with their paid subscribers?
Netflix didn’t start with ads, and the ads don’t affect pre-existing subscription tiers.
For what it’s worth, Facebook didn’t have ads way back in the day
Uh, no. The system is:
- The law requires us to disable tracking by default for all users
- We can’t make hundreds of billions of dollars per year with tracking disabled
- So - make the service $14/month by default, unless you opt-in.
- It’s win/win. If users pay $14, they make huge profits. If users opt in to tracking, they make huge profits.
Next step might be to add some ads to paid version?
Yep:
Amazon is sticking ads in Prime Video shows and movies unless you pay more
deleted by creator
And includes YouTube Music.
For now.
The only reason I use YouTube Music is because it’s part of YouTube Premium. They just discontinued YouTube Premium Lite which allowed you to get ad free YouTube without YouTube Music. The only way they can make YouTube Music succeed and take away revenue from Spotify is if they bundle it in with ad free YouTube.
For now, sure. But corporations only bundle services to build their userbase. Once their service hits a critical mass (read: they think they can get away with it) they will break the bundle up and charge for each service individually. It’s an inherent feature of capitalism- corporations can’t leave any perceived money on the table. Why charge one price for two services, when you can charge two prices for two services? And they’ll couch it as “giving users more choice!” by noting you can only pay for one service without the other if you want- while conveniently ignoring the users who utilized both features would be paying more. Mark my words: YouTube Premium will not stay bundled with YouTube Music. At some point in the future, Google will charge for each service separately.
Well, assuming Google doesn’t randomly kill one of them off outright, that is.
The only reason I have YouTube Music and YouTube Premium is because I had Google Play Music ages ago, then they added YouTube Premium to it, and eventually closed down GPM in favour of YouTube Music. I’m still only paying $9 a month for it, so that’s something I guess. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Damn, I also had Google Play Music family account, which got transitioned to Youtube Music, but am paying the standard $23/month 💸
YT Premium is imo one of the most scammy subscriptions, as you can easily and legally get what it offers with free tools.
deleted by creator
Facebook still sell your data even if you pay to give it to them.
For that price you could have your own ad-free Mastodon instance for whole family from masto.host for 9$/month, 1TB of Nextcloud cloud storage with up to 100 accounts from Hetzner for 4$/month and one premium Bitwarden account for 1$/month.
If I had any confidence in this company, it might have been interesting. 🤔
I loath them with a passion. That said, I find the groups feature extremely valuable. THAT said, I will only access it through a browser, with numerous privacy protections.
So now you can voluntarily give your financial info in addition to the data they already leech. That too with a nominal monthly fee. Great!!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meta is preparing to charge EU users a $14 monthly subscription fee to access Instagram on their phones unless they allow the company to use their personal information for targeted ads.
Several social media platforms, which for years made all their features available for free, have recently begun to charge for extras, as their traditional ad businesses come under pressure from privacy regulations and marketers become more selective with their budgets.
Snapchat and X, formerly Twitter, also sell optional subscriptions offering paying users exclusive features, such as verified profiles, custom app themes and fewer ads.
The Silicon Valley-based company has until the end of November to comply with a Luxembourg court ruling from this year which found that Facebook “cannot justify” the use of personal data to target consumers with ads unless it gains their consent.
The Digital Markets Act, which comes into force in March, imposes new legal obligations on companies to share data with rivals to promote fair competition.
In May, Facebook, which is owned by Meta, was fined a record €1.2 billion for violating privacy laws that required appropriate safeguards of transfers of data from the EU to the US.
The original article contains 710 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So now people should pay to get their data sold to advertisers?
Brilliant.
This is why I use a modded version of Instagram that gets rid of ads
I’d pay a few bucks a month to get rid of ads—easily more than they make by showing me ads—but $14 is just absurd. It’s like they want this new program to fail.
I’d pay that for a version of both apps from 10-15 years ago. Same with Twitter (would have to include banning Elon and trump)
I like the movement from ads to subscriptions. But no shot I’m paying for social media. But maybe I’m anti-social.
Zuck my cock, Meta.
