How did we let this happen? We used to have open protocols, apps like Pidgin that would bring multiple chat clients together under one interface, IRC, Skype P2P, etc. etc.
Was it spammers that caused this mass migration to ever more closed platforms?
The vast majority of people aren't aware of open versus closed protocols. If enough people they want to communicate with are using it to counterbalance how frustrating it is, they'll use it. It happened because businesses realized there's profit in lock in, and they threw resources at it.
Open protocols are still there and still used, but we're sad because the smaller userbase is frustrating. Just like how people still publish human written content to personal blogs, but they're proportionally non-existent.
Yeah, there are precisely two apps that can exchange with Whatsapp: one is still in beta, the other is by invite only, and for "professional networking" or something like that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46746476
Discord subscriptions seem to be working. People like to customize their profile (ie express themselves), even though profiles are not something frequently interacted with (that's the surprising part!)
I have a server (for my game) with about 1000 people. Out of the 300 people logged in, 50 of them have custom profiles.
The main problem is that premium subscriptions don’t generate that much revenue when compared to ads alone. The users who pay are the most valuable users to advertisers and the users who don’t pay are the least valuable. Discord generates about $1 in revenue per user compared to Facebook at closer to $100. For Discord at $1 per user, any subscription that’s a few dollars or more is probably paying for the lost advertising revenue, but it wouldn’t translate for Meta so they aren’t including ad free which drastically reduces the value.
I’ll be surprised if Meta’s subscriptions are as popular as Discord’s without being advertising free. Cosmetics are liked amongst Discord’s audience of nerds, but not Meta’s audience of normal people.
Very interested to see how this works out for Meta. Since they’re not excluding ads, it’s basically free money, so they may as well offer these subscriptions.
I wish these companies didn't need to make billions in revenue. There's no reason why a small company couldn't manage a site like Discord, make enough to pay their developers, and be successful. But instead every company needs to become a unicorn and pay investors billions.
> The users who pay are the most valuable users to advertisers and the users who don’t pay are the least valuable.
But also, definitionally, the users who are willing to pay the most are the ones who the see ads as the biggest anti-value (i.e. cost) to themselves - so they'll be the ones most likely to not use the service if they're not given an ad-free option - cutting down the average user value anyway.
Forgive me for not wanting to write up the history of the game's development. It boils down to product market fit, innovation, and fantasy fulfillment/fun.
You can get free profile decorations these days from watching ads (discord “orbs”). It would be interesting to know how many of those users have the nitro subscription badge next to their name
Whenever companies make statements like this and then people act surprised when they backtrack, I can't help but think of a bit of my favorite dialogue from Star Trek Enterprise.
HARRIS: We had an arrangement!
KRELL: You did what I wanted. I don't need you anymore.
HARRIS: You agreed that both our governments would benefit if the two of us worked together.
Not only that, but Spybook aka Facebook, also connected offline information, e. g. I think if I recall it was dental care or something like that. I don't remember the year (edit: a google search led me to this article from 2018, but I could swear this was several years before that - see https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43668607), but it was scary that they go and sniff for ALL data they can find about people. This brings mega-corporation to a new level of Evil. And I haven't even gotten to talk about Google here, yet ...
I'd bet good money this is mostly related to Europe's GDPR / DMA actions against Facebook. Ironically, I think Facebook would be in the clear to just charge everyone in Europe and dump ads altogether. :shrug:
I didn't see it mentioned that this hid ads. I would be surprised if it did, since facebook makes way more than $4/month off many of it's users, they would be leaving a ton of money on the table if they only charged that to remove ads.
Probably paying would toggle on/off personalization of the ads, but then also they'd charge extra for the ads they show to "paying high-quality users" or something, so they can double-dip both sides.
What reality? The reality is almost nobody likes using Facebook (and many people can't anyway because they get banned while the racist thing or whatever they report never gets taken down) because it doesn't work, messages are hit and miss, nobody sees any status updates, and it's 20 ads per post
I would pay $49.99/mo for an unlimited plan that brings me only my friends' status updates (not their hyper-political likes and comments), just their life updates. Daily stories are great too. But JUST that, no influencers, no ads.
I realize Meta's data shows that our user revealed preferences tells them that we like all the dopamine hijacking garbage but that's like saying "Well users like drugs, so we gave them more". Let me pay you to give me just the vitamins, and none of the sugar.
$50 per month for unlimited, not $50 per friend, so your solution only works if you only have 1 friend, so it would work for me (self-deprecating joke) but may not for GP.
Everything about matrix is cumbersome and glitchy. I have last tried to use it a few years ago and it seemed that Riot/Element had the only decent clients, and those were all Electron on desktop and also seemingly for profit. Signal has the electron problem, as well as many others (like the backup UI being abhorrent), but at least the core functionality works without fuss.
A friend and I have been running a private Matrix server for almost a decade now, it's very lacking in comparison to what the average chat user (especially discord) is used to.
No custom emojis, no self-chat, embeds are inconsistent (e.g. encrypted rooms), multi-image uploads aren't a thing in many clients, adding text when sending an attachment isn't a thing, just to name things we've run into over the years. Most of these have been brought up to the devs many years ago, only to spend forever in spec hell and never actually make it into a release.
We're just tolerating these, because we explicitly moved off discord to have control over our data, but being tech savvy we can handle this. It's nowhere near good enough that I could use it with less savvy people.
And if the federated server you are on goes down. You lose everything. If the federated server you are on steals your information or censors you there is nothing you can do.
You have to choose a server that you trust. In centralized systems, you have no choice at all. If you can't find a trusted server, you can set up your own, ask a friend to do it for you, or pay someone to do this job. You are not bound to an artificial monopoly.
Signal is designed with the assumption that data is sensitive and you should err on the side of destroying it.
Facebook is designed more as a shared scrapbook, with the assumption that data is precious and you want to share it with your community, and you should err on the side of oversharing so you don't lose any precious moments. Signal is in no way a replacement for Facebook.
> Have you used Facebook in the last 5 years? Its nothing like this at all.
I use it all the time. Yesterday I was talking to a friend, and we were reminiscing about visiting another friend's house, and we looked up some old birthday party invitations to help us remember when we had been there.
Honestly it's all there, if you use the "feeds" view in the menu it cuts out all the random influencer garbage. The search, especially the event search, is not great, but honestly I hope they don't touch it because I'm more worried about them enshittifying it further than I am about getting some creature comforts.
When Facebook was food this was how it was used and what people liked. Nobody would care what they've done to the product in the past 10 years to optimize for money over mental health
This is absurd. You're just asking for reasonable control over data that ostensibly belongs to you. Moreover, this minimum functionality was resolved years ago with RSS. That you'd be willing to pay so much reflects how well every tech company is doing at using tech against its own users.
Ehhh, what I'm paying for is FB/Insta's ability to bring everyone onto one platform and encourage them to post regularly. RSS, AOL Messenger etc, never were able to do that with any decent success.
That they went past that to just kill their own golden goose is what is now reversible via a payment plan. That might be their only saving grace on this now managed decline.
But FB/Insta haven't been able to get everyone onto one platform. Generations are balkanized across FB, Instagram, and WhatsApp (all of which Meta bought precisely because it can’t manage with its original social network), and TikTok.
Nah once they know you can be fleeced for $50 per month, they also know there is much more money to extract from you. Their advertisers would be mad if they remove this juicy cohort of moneybags from their audience.
I am surprised someone hasn't made a really nice equivalent to Obsidian for Mastadon and just released it for free on the app stores. I am sure one could host a very cheap mastadon instance on a low cost VPS
I think I would pay it. The peace of mind knowing that my every move isn't tracked and being used to sell me stuff or engagement bait me is invaluable tbh
I paid for youtube premium for a few months under the reasoning that I hate those auto playing make money ads so much. Certainly paying for peace is worthwhile.
Youtube legitimately has some quality content. But I ended my subscription because fundamentally, streamlining the path to more Youtube usage is self-enabling devil’s work.
Point being: Im not convinced paying money to these companies is ultimately going to result in a healthier, more safe more private experience, no matter what they claim.
At best they will honor the contract of not tracking your moves through that app. They will use part of your money to buy the information about your moves from other sources, or track you with another app.
I basically don't use Facebook any more because of this. Opening the app shows me the most sensationalist, fearmongering and outrage bait content they can find. It's worse than news channels (I haven't watched TV for 20 years). I have auto play turned off, and every few months the setting gets turned back on.
The first few posts I see scrolling through:
- US adds mandatory tips ahead of world cup.
- Woman dies after being hit by Audi in city center.
- There was a huge queue for women's toilets at a tech conference.
- 50% off mattresses.
- Some influencer I don't follow bought 20 rolls of 3M tape from Lidl.
Do I still have friends, do they still post stuff? I only see them in the reels/stories section at the top.
The only reason why I still have Facebook is because of groups. It's the main 'groups' tool people use in my country, so there are various local groups I am part of.
There is not a single subscription in the world I would pay more than $20/month for personal purposes, unlimited (and I do mean unlimited) LLM tokens very much included.
That was the premise of halloapp.
I think it was $5 a month and encrypted like WhatsApp, and you had a feed only from your contacts.
It was founded by a guy who worked for WhatsApp for a long time. Apparently it went under in 2024.
I think messaging is just a commoditized service. People will not pay for it
I've seen too many of those privacy-respecting alternative social networks. Problem is that you'll post things only for yourself, which may be cool if you don't care about actually having friends there.
I believe you can get close to that with various Instagram mods for Android. They have advanced features like only show posts from followers and stuff like that. I switched to one of them after realizing the 5 second ad breaks I got were only there because I disabled personalized advertising.
You can ditch all that and talk to your friends (text them or call them or visit them) for almost free, actually. You can keep up with people without a middleman.
Unfortunately, Meta’s ad business is so effective that they would need to charge hundreds of dollars per year for an ad free service just to keep revenue stable. I suspect anything less than $25 per month would be loss making for them.
The last numbers I saw are almost 10 years old now, and then it was $65 per year in profit for a Facebook user, in the US, a little less for someone in the EU and almost nothing in most other places.
Are there new numbers that one can access? I can imagine the value has gone up, but hundreds of dollars seem like a lot.
People who pay subscriptions are exactly the sort of people you want to advertise to the most since they've signaled they have money. It's like flashing a big wad of cash in a seedy bar.
You probably couldn't even sell an Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp bundle for ~$25 per month.
This sort of looks like a subscription for influencers, organisation and "power users". Even if you turned off the ads, most of people feed, from what I've seen are basically ads they signed up for, e.g. posts from companies, so I doubt that most even care.
Interesting. Instagram and Facebook both seem to be filled with AI-generated fake crap today. Even the so-called news items that I see there seem to be fake. I don't even know who would be subscribing. Especially to Facebook as of today....
It is filled with pretty low quality content overall. On the other side, WhatsApp has been getting filled with a lot of bloat. And even today, I find it confusing to use communities in WhatsApp. The entire navigation and experience around that feature confused me a few times. There's been more and more push towards the AI crap on WhatsApp as well.
The only good thing about WhatsApp is, it is used by everyone that I know, so I can connect with them pretty easily and make calls, etc. I hope they don't enshittify it too much to the point where I'll go and use Signal full time.
> Instagram and Facebook both seem to be filled with AI-generated fake crap today.
Also youtube, unfortunately. Google does not understand that AI is slowly killing youtube.
I am an expert cat video person, so noticing AI slop is not so hard, but it takes a few seconds (e. g. a mother cat punishing the young cat for "overreach" - the way how the AI video insinuated reality was of course completely false, AI spam slop that lies to real humans). I'd rather wish Google would not waste my time (then again, why am I still using youtube ... one day I'll be degoogled for good. The sooner Google is gone from this planet, the better.)
And also, pretty much any internet-generated social media content, basically. Reddit is another classic example. If you look at many posts in subreddits containing a huge number of users, you could easily tell it is AI-generated, especially these idiotic "Am I the asshole" posts or "askreddit" posts and any other posts involving interesting situations.
Not just that. Even comments, some of those are basically AI crap, cleverly disguised as real users. It is such a waste, honestly. AI has brought upon us a low-quality world to live in, out of nowhere. This is such a pity.
Shorts are a dumpster fire in terms of fake content. Full length videos are a lot better, as YT has been cracking down on AI generated regular videos, though there are still a fair number of AI narrated/scripted videos and deepfakes of prolific interviewees.
> There are also other features like Super Heart animated reactions for Stories, custom app icons, customizable fonts for profile bios, and access to additional pins for your profile.
Ahh, remember the days of livejournal/myspace, where we got all of those “features” for free because your profile is literally a fucking webpage
Just stop using Meta products. It's really not as hard as it seems. Nobody needs FB to communicate with friends and family. Send texts or emails or use your phone.
The hardest part about not using Meta products is deciding not to use meta products. When I stopped using Facebook, I had resigned myself to spending a lot of time and effort to stay in touch with my friends and family. As it turns out, all I had to do was mention that I was using Signal, and the people closest to me, then pretty close to me, then kinda close to me all started using that too. The network effect cuts both ways.
It’s amazing how strong the Meta FOMO is. I stopped using Facebook over 10 years ago and never even opened Instagram or WhatsApp, and I really am not missing out on anything in life. My actual friends know how to contact me and they do! And it’s really not that hard to say “Sorry I don’t have Whats App, just call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.”
If someone is prepared to not be my friend because they only want to communicate via a Meta app, then I don’t see why I’d want them as a friend.
The annoying thing is how many businesses and communities rely on Meta platforms instead of their own websites and sometimes it's the only way to contact them. If I want to check if the small neighborhood grocery has something in stock? No phone, only Instagram DMs. When I was on vacation abroad and wanted to see if an out of the way farmers market was still happening despite rain? Only Facebook.
The good thing is that it isn't everywhere: Taiwan, Japan, and China usually have apps like Line or WeChat as options. In Europe there's more usage of WhatsApp (which is still Meta owned but also not social media). But in the US (and countries in the Americas), I still see a heavy reliance on Instagram and Facebook.
> want to check if the small neighborhood grocery has something in stock? No phone, only Instagram DMs.
You can use a throwaway account for that or other things such as FB Marketplace. It's not ideal because it generates traffic on FB, but it's better than handing over all your private communications to Zuckerberg.
Not sure what country are you from. Last time I tried to make a throwaway account to sell something in Facebook Marketplace I was welcome with a submit picture to test if you are real which when uploaded with a IA generated picture got blocked.
> The annoying thing is how many businesses and communities rely on Meta platforms
During local elections over here (Netherlands), it was impossible to find any info from local parties outside of Facebook. Those parties are also the biggest, usually. I ended up voting for the one party that had a website with their plans for that exact reason.
1/ meta products trigger organic conversations. People post on Instagram and Facebook that they’re traveling and I will reach out to them if I’m close by. People don’t use Signal that way.
2/ the Facebook groups are very useful for local communities. As a traveler, I reach out to Expat groups for feedback.
Right. If being on meta is what keeps the "friendship" going and leaving the platform would have negative effect on the relationship, then on my opinion it wasn't a friendship to begin with. But that might just be my outdated view of how humans work.
I'm thinking about it, but WhatsApp has a real hold on the Brazilian population. Removing it would mean losing the primary way my family and many people I know communicate. It’s ubiquitous here, sadly.
I don’t know about other places, but in SF, everything around schools is coordinated over WhatsApp—you’d be really doing your children a disservice to opt out.
And I hate it. I had deactivated all my Meta accounts but reactivated WhatsApp because of school stuff.
Tell your school board to use a dedicated messaging platform built for schools. Cite privacy laws. That's what I did, and it worked.
Unless you're talking about parent groups. Because then you're fucked. Every parent group everywhere uses Facebook or Whatsapp and don't care that not everybody uses it. You will be excluded.
I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of the philosophy: “you’re not missing out on anything worthwhile by being excluded by people who want to exclude you.” Don’t voluntarily interact with people who make “uses a particular app” a condition of that interaction.
I assume parents. Not actual schools. Same situation here on East Coast. School uses ParentSquare but so much coordination is over iMesssage and WhatsApp.
> Tell your school board to use a dedicated messaging platform built for schools. Cite privacy laws. That's what I did, and it worked.
My daughter's school uses a clunky proprietary platform that is way, way worse than WhatsApp. I wish they used WhatsApp! Actually, they also do this, because being non techies their use of tech is all over the place and they adopted the worst of both worlds: school digital platform (very clunky) and, because it sucks, also WhatsApp. So important communications reach me both ways.
You are years behind. It was in 2016 that, when traveling and wanting to exchange contacts with cool local people I met, I first began to get the response “My e-mail address? I don’t have email.” Already then many younger people were only on social media, and it was expected that you would exchange those contacts. And some countries never had the email moment at all, so even older people don’t use it.
Ditto for phones, if you mean the PSTN – as time goes on, fewer and fewer people have ever really used that. When people around the world are communicating via their smartphones with a phone-number-based protocol, it’s overwhelmingly WhatsApp, and guess who owns that?
Everyone is free to define “need” and who their friends should be as strictly as they want, because, sure, some people could become total hermits. But it’s not going to strike most people as a reasonable definition.
You mention “FB and Instagram”, and I haven’t used either in a decade myself. But the OP did mention “Meta products” and you are ignoring the elephant in the room: WhatsApp. In many countries it has completely replaced the PSTN: you cannot contact a business (they won’t answer normal calls and may not post email addresses), cannot get the necessary info on how to check into the reception-less accommodation one booked, and one will find it hard to maintain contact with people one may well wish to maintain contact with.
That statement applies to the person who won't be your friend because you don't have an Instagram, not to the person who refuses to install an arbitrary app as a precondition to becoming friends.
Someone might be perfectly happy being your friend, and not understanding why you never come to their parties that they advertise via the group chat on whatever platform, or insta posts or whatever.
"If they cared enough they would message me directly on my obscure to normies messaging platform!" Yeah your best friend might. The greater social circle?
I get it, I'm trying to get everyone on signal or onto federated platforms, but I'm realizing that if I wanna talk to The People, I need to go to where The People are.
There was an old YouTube video of a young guy standing around somewhere in East Asia, placards in hand, recording himself showing messages on those placards about why you should quit social media, set to Marching The Hate Machines.
It had a placard in it saying something like "You don't have 100 friends. You have like 4. And that's OK."
The more I'm getting older, the truer this has become. There is something extremely zen-like about letting the past trail away like the wake of a ship, as Watts said.
In an ideal world, those people were dear to me, and me to them, and we would all stay in touch and be one big happy family, n'importe the distance. But it takes plenty out of me just to be there for those that matter most. And for them, putting up with my quirks is burdensome but not an unscalable wall. As it is for me with their quirks in reverse.
How do they not have email when it's required to sign up for various sites, plus having android phones requires gmail, plus official documents, bank accounts, job applications etc. tend to ask for email; email is used for work as well...?
Notice how in the last several years, a lot of popular sites have allowed signing up with phone numbers, no email address required. Besides making the service more accessible to a generation that doesn’t use email, getting a person’s phone number is great for profiling them for advertising reasons.
In many countries, either WhatsApp or a PSTN number for receiving an SMS is used today for the things that you think are done with email. I have lived in two countries that have highly digitized government services, and they were provided over an official app where email wasn’t part of the signup flow.
Sure, maybe some people use email at work (but WhatsApp has eaten into even that in some regions), but then that address is so associated with work that they don’t use it for social contacts.
Good luck trying to not use Meta products (specifically WhatsApp) as a (non-tech) professional outside the US needing to communicate with their counterparts.
The best compromise for such people, I guess, would be a work phone number that's solely for business WhatsApp communication.
I don't think it would be difficult to explain, especially in a professional capacity, that you don't use Whatsapp or Facebook because it does not meet your privacy requirements of your business.
Only on HN could someone post a take like this without getting laughed at. Outside our very geeky HN bubble, hardly anyone (let's say in Europe, but all my friends in the US use it as well) uses anything other than WhatsApp. There's literally zero reason for the average user to switch.
WhatsApp as the only contact point is a pretty strong signal that the user is from a developing world country. I'm not from that part of the world, so I don't use WhatsApp.
If you count -all of europe- as a developing country, sure.
In europe we never had free unlimited texts. Internet was cheaper than calling/texting, especially with everyone having wifi at home and work. So a cross-platform messaging app appeared and has replaced text and calling.
Sure, it's not airtight. WhatsApp is popular in Europe. But as an American, when I see somebody say "You can only contact me on WhatsApp", it's not exactly a green text bubble signal.
I’m pretty sure it is extremely popular almost everywhere except the US (and maybe China? I think they have their own thing). We’re the odds ones out in this case.
I am living in spain and I never used whatsapp professionally. I've had a few messages sent by medical clinics to confirm appointment, delivery workers to drop a package or some others pros but if you don't have whatsapp they just call you anyway so it is not necessary.
Most people in Spain still rely and prefer voice calls than messages anyway. I believe half the country must still be illiterate as they manage to send voice message but struggle to send written messages on whatsapp.
On a personal level you lose a bit of information when you don't have whatsapp. For example I didn't join the whatsapp group of my dance class and I am often unaware of stuff they mention on it but that doesn't prevent me to attend said classes.
I think this is a Spanish/Portuguese language thing... I am in some clubs with many Spanish speakers and they love to send voice memos! I am in Europe though so maybe the Brazilians I know have adapted to their European counterparts.
Absolutely inaccurate. I am nationalized Spaniard living here 2+ decades. Almost no one over 50 calls on the phone and when they do they almost always send a message first. The large public institution I work in is removing landlines completely because they get too little use to justify the cost.
I am (mostly against my will) in multiple professional and personal Whatsapp groups. Use is constant and daily and unavoidable. It is the principal means of communication in both work and personal settings. Calls are always a second option.
I suspect your experience reflects only partial integration in local culture.
As the other person mentions, WhatsApp adoption is vast in Europe, including the bulk of the continent where “developing world country” isn’t a reasonable label. I travel frequently across Europe, and when I book reception-less accommodation, WhatsApp is often the only way that self-check-in details are provided. Saying that “I don't use WhatsApp” might even lead to the reservation being immediately canceled on their part.
I'm in Europe, with a bunch of non-geeky friends, coming from all walks of life who have Signal installed.
As a sibling comment to yours stated, the hardest decision was deciding to stop using Meta.
I have a militant "let the leaves fall where they may" attitude towards stopping relationships with companies I detest (Microsoft, Amazon, Meta...) It all always works out fine.
I travel a lot within Europe and socialize, and Signal adoption is pretty limited continent-wide. You are lucky. Even when people do have Signal, a stock response if I ask “Do you have Signal?” is “Oh, sure, I use it to buy drugs”, which probably doesn’t help the app’s image in the eyes of the surrounding society.
Haha I love the super out of touch takes on here sometimes. Not using WhatsApp or Facebook where I live absolutely introduces major difficulty to communication and even every day interactions where almost 100% of communication in various social groups is happening on these platforms. Should I ask them to move?
The sticky bit I have is facebook marketplace - it's wiped out the other classified marketplaces in my area.
I'm not making any serious money off the old stuff I sell, but the alternative to selling it (or even giving away low-value stuff that's still functional) on facebook is basically just throwing it out / destructively recycling it.
I maintain Meta accounts for two purposes. Facebook Marketplace, and following local businesses on Instagram because it's become the de facto platform for many artists/bars/restaurants/popups to distribute information. I don't add friends, I don't "like" posts, and I don't doomscroll the garbage they put in my feed.
I'm willing to give Meta the information that I enjoy old cars, bar trivia, and breakfast sandwich pop-ups.
in my region (middle east) facebook marketplace is the defacto listing. I know craiglist (just from me being on internet for so long) but i don't think it operates here. And for sellers they also only know facebook.
Locally, craigslist was never a thing. I cross-post everything I sell to Facebook and Kijiji, but I get an order of magnitude more sales from my Facebook posts. (And Kijiji has gated certain categories behind a paywall, so e.g. I can't post a $20 car part without paying $5 for the ad.)
The instagram thing is annoying. Like the primary to find out about social events in my city seems to be Instagram. Yoga teachers post their schedules there, bars/venues post their events there, reddit is often an afterthought and still I'd prefer something else. But what??
> Just stop using Meta products. It's really not as hard as it seems. Nobody needs FB to communicate with friends and family. Send texts or emails or use your phone.
I'm in WhatsApp groups with friends who live abroad, SMS is not an option. We could use another chat app, but then I'd have to convince every friend from every group to use something else. WhatsApp is what every friend I have agrees on.
I belong to several hobby groups that exist only on Facebook or Reddit (or Discord, but I dislike it for several reasons). I'd like to ditch both Facebook and Reddit, but that would mean leaving those hobby groups, and given the joy they bring me, I'm not willing to pull the plug yet.
All it would take is WhatsApp going paid plans only. All of Europe will switch to Telegram as primary messaging platform in a couple of days.
Hence a paid only WhatsApp will never happen until every plausible alternative will be made impossible either by acquisition or by law.
Whatever it is, it's the most known WhatsApp alternative in this part of the world and if WhatsApp will start asking again only 1 Euro (about 15 years ago) and enforce it this time, my bet is that people will switch to Telegram en masse.
Ha, I fell for that the first time, not getting me twice. That was my wake up call for how insular the HN bubble is and how utterly convinced people here are that they represent or understand normies.
Honestly don't know how Meta keeps customers. Facebook is hanging on for dear life with geriatrics and marketplace. Insta is a cesspool of fake content that needs to die in a dumpster fire. Not sure why you'd use WhatsApp over alternatives like Signal now.
It's almost like the people still using Meta services are metaphorical bots or low agency human beings.
Yes, you could use Signal, but my take is that people don't want yet another account for something. Facebook works and it has all the other activities people need to keep track of. For most you wouldn't be replacing Facebook or WhatsApp with Signal, you'd add Signal to an already busy phone.
People don't care about the platform, they just want shit to work and for better or worse, Facebook works for them.
This is a brilliant take. I was talking to friends the other day and we were reminiscing about the old days where you'd email and phone people. And if there was a family event you'd shove a quite write up and some photos on your personal web site and email the links out to people. Some parts of the family would mail a newsletter around periodically.
No, the suggestion "only" works for those of your friends who truly value you. If they want to connect with you, they'll find a way. If they don't, they won't.
Ah, yes, "truly value". The measure of how much one is valued is whether people are willing to move out of a chat app due to some sort of nerd principle. Needless to say, I disagree.
I value my (various groups of) friends more than I value moving out of WhatsApp, and for what anyway? WhatsApp is perfect for our needs. If it becomes paid-only, we'll move out of it, but not before. I don't need dealing with this kind of nerdy crusade. And I need to have WhatsApp installed anyway for different family members [1] and the parent school groups and official comms from school.
Sorry, but that suggestion is a no-go in the real world. It only works in the micro-bubble of HN.
---
[1] Let me preempt your likely "but convince all of your family of using <thing> instead...". No. Just no.
>The measure of how much one is valued is whether people are willing to move out of a chat app due to some sort of nerd principle.
Why do they have to be "willing to move out"? They're free to continue to use whatever they want, but how they get in touch with you might be different. Also, what's up with using "nerd" as a pejorative? Why the hostility?
But at the end of the day, yeah, it's not all that off-base. The measure of how much someone values staying in touch with you is generally going to be reflected in how much effort they put into doing so.
>Sorry, but that suggestion is a no-go in the real world.
What is "the real world"? Is there a standard definition that is applicable to everyone everywhere? I live in "the real world", too, and have no issue conversing with all of my family, parents from my kid's school, and official notifications from school without WhatsApp or social media. Texts, phone calls, emails, regular in-person meets/activities all work wonders, as does the school's communication system that can be accessed via a browser, or the notices/bulletins my kids bring home on paper that typically cover most of what's communicated via the browser (but I digress).
>It only works in the micro-bubble of HN.
No, it works where it works, and it doesn't where it doesn't. The thing that a lot of people in the comments in these types of threads seem to miss is that this is very obviously a "YMMV" situation, wholly dependent upon what's around you. Sure, fine, use WhatsApp because you need important information from your kid's school(s) if that's literally the only way they communicate - I'm a reasonable individual who won't criticize such a move, because your hands are tied. C'est la vie.
>[1] Let me preempt your likely "but convince all of your family of using <thing> instead...". No. Just no.
There's no pre-empting necessary on your part because I had no intention of it, but, uhh... thanks for the assumption, I guess? You don't have to bother convincing anyone. "Here's how to reach me," one time is all that needs to be done. If they want to reach you, they'll reach you. No extolling of virtues required, and trying to convince someone not to use something is not necessary.
> Why do they have to be "willing to move out"? They're free to continue to use whatever they want, but how they get in touch with you might be different. Also, what's up with using "nerd" as a pejorative? Why the hostility?
No, I'm not going to force them to communicate differently with me just out of some sort of principle. WhatsApp works. And I do want to talk to them, it's not an "either way, who cares" deal for me.
And there's no hostility, I was merely pointing out how much HN can be out of touch with reality sometimes. "Nerdy" is only a hostile adjective if you want it to be. Do you?
> What is "the real world"? Is there a standard definition that is applicable to everyone everywhere? I live in "the real world", too, and have no issue conversing with all of my family, parents from my kid's school, and official notifications from school without WhatsApp or social media.
I already explained this in my first comment to which you replied: the only people who see no trouble in replacing all these apps are those who don't use them for anything interesting. Like you. Meanwhile, other people exist in the rest of the world, and it's not so easy...
> The thing that a lot of people in the comments in these types of threads seem to miss [...]
Exactly. We just disagree on what is missed.
> "Here's how to reach me," one time is all that needs to be done. If they want to reach you, they'll reach you.
No, this is not how it works. This is, like I said, a very HN micro-bubble thing to say.
>No, I'm not going to force them to communicate differently with me just out of some sort of principle.
Nobody's asking you to force them. :)
>I already explained this in my first comment to which you replied: the only people who see no trouble in replacing all these apps are those who don't use them for anything interesting. Like you. Meanwhile, other people exist in the rest of the world, and it's not so easy...
Yes, your comment said that it "will only work for people who are not really users of WhatsApp or Instagram". My point is that I have plenty of friends and family who regularly use both of those platforms, and they also regularly communicate with me outside of those platforms. It took no haranguing on my part, I just let them know how to say hey if they wanted to.
>No, this is not how it works.
It is! I genuinely think you'd be surprised at how many people would go along with it.
>This is, like I said, a very HN micro-bubble thing to say.
Except that it's not. What is "HN" about walking away from tech? That's a growing trend in our contemporary society. You argue that it's a "very HN" thing to do, yet I'm the only person in my friends and family group that would be considered a "techie", and everyone who I communicate with seems to have had no problem getting in touch with me outside of those tech apps.
If you're not forcing them, and you want to keep in touch with them, aren't we back where we started? "It's not so easy".
> It took no haranguing on my part, I just let them know how to say hey if they wanted to.
Perfect, it worked for you. It doesn't work for others. Let's say it with me: "it's not so easy".
> It is! I genuinely think you'd be surprised at how many people would go along with it.
It's not! There are many groups out there for which your experience doesn't apply. It's a bubble. And it's a bit presumptuous to assume your interlocutor has no experience trying to change things. At one point, some things are not worth the effort and one has to pick their battles.
> Except that it's not. What is "HN" about walking away from tech?
The HN bubble I refer to is the one where they (we actually, of course I'm not immune) think their microcosm of experiences, very principled and nerd- or tech-focused, and often for specific cultures or nations, applies to the rest of the world. It's typical of some HN'ers to announce to the world that they have LEFT FACEBOOK FOR GOOD and that they aren't missing anything important. Great for them!
It's helpful to always remember: not everyone is like you/me/us, and... wait for it... "it's not that easy".
Interesting. There are no ads for messaging. I only use WhatsApp for messages (individual and groups). I've never used status updates or any other nonsense (I don't even understand why one would want to do status updates, but some people seem to use them).
All of this to say: ads are only in status updates and channels (no idea what this is, never used one) and apparently not in every region.
the channel’s in whatsapp is just so annoying, i have seen mostly channels are created based around promotion of their products no usecase and yeah no ads on WhatsApp till now
I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues.
How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers.
By having material subscription revenue coming in for things outside the advertising space, the product managers can justify investing in features that otherwise would be passed up due to lack of revenue potential from advertising.
Yes, in many ways Meta gets to have their cake and eat it too, because the ads are still there even with the plans, but this does give a meaningful voice to their customers who pay that they can invest in other ways outside of strictly advertising.
Heard it here on HN: problem is paying a subscription is purely additive. eventually, inevitably, they’ll take the subscription AND sell your data, serve you ads, etc.
it being against what your payment contract states just means they’ll reinvent and rename the tiers.
It seems like there's no solution, then: companies will always chase the next dollar that allows them to exceed growth expectations on the earnings call. It seems like no matter what, anti-user behavior in pursuit of profit is inevitable.
well Apple is stated as an easy counter example. They charge money for premium hardware and software. everything else is downstream. So while they could squeeze at every possible opportunity, they are less incentivized to abuse the relationship because their core proposition is: you pay money for our premium hardware and software.
it’s imperfect but contrasts this with the modern approach of grow at all costs, light money on fire and punt entirely on how to ever make money. it usually doesn’t end well for customers.
The golden age of the internet was when it was an enthusiast's space. It is now almost entirely a corporate space, where the remaining enthusiasts' content is scraped 100K times a day and sold without attribution by the corporates.
The fediverse is a step in the right direction, and Meta charging may create another wave of converts there. It has a lot of growth pains to endure yet, but the ability to painlessly spin up your own instance could be very attractive to young people looking for their own non-corporate spaces on the internet.
We may also see some renewal via large companies (Meta in particular) imploding, from mismanagement and disenchanted users. My experience marketing a new product is that online advertising is completely ineffective now the web is filled with slop, no matter how well targeted it is. We've recently pivoted to optimise for word-of-mouth with orders of magnitude better results. I think any adtech company without a solid alternative profit stream is in for a rough ride (and no, AI is not a solid profit stream for anyone but Nvidia).
This is just a copy of the YouTube model, to your point. It's not that you're going to get a premier experience. It's that you'll be spared from full enshittification. Only tech bros could possibly think making the default subscription level so bad that it would drive revenue. But here we are.
From what I can tell, that's already the case for these subscriptions. They give you some extra stuff but you're still getting ads, and they are still collecting your data
You seem to be attacking a different statement that no one says: "if the product isn't free, you aren't the product". There's no "if and only if" in the maxim.
Pretty sure you agree that if the product is free, the company is definitely getting value by monetizing something else of yours. It very much is true as written.
But the context of the parent's and grandparent's comments was (paraphrased) "if you don't pay, you're the product, therefore it makes sense to pay in this case". But given what we know of Meta and their ilk, we have good reason to believe this is absolutely NOT the case: you'll pay but you'll still be the product, and their offerings will keep on the road to enshitification. So parent comment is correct given this context.
I don't believe they were making the case that free Facebook is in any way healthy or good for you.
Id pay money to not see ads. Like YouTube premium. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. Can’t believe they rolled out all these different plans and left out the one thing a lot of people would buy.
Does Youtube Premium track and build profiles and use and sell them? I assume so because Google, but does Premium remove advertising (in the broad sense of the business model and profiling) or remove just ads? YT in general seems "kinder" than others at a few things, like you can remove history and activity and even get a blank homescreen.
Aside: I think it's funny how with an NYT subscription, you still get not only ads, but frequent article-covering ads for NYT subscriptions (asking to upgrade to a family account).
I believe the ads that "lite" Premium doesn't remove are on anything that has ContentID music in it, as they have to pay higher fees to the record labels for those.
I've been considering writing a nastygram to the NYT about their nonsense popups. Every time I open their web page I get not only the family account popup, but also a "use our app, it's better!" popup.
I refuse to install your app just because you intentionally trash the web experience with popups.
Most of these big companies don’t actually sell your data directly, they monetize it through first party ads. If you have a well-oiled ad machine with strong first party data, selling the data just gives it to competitors, and is overall less valuable than using it for yourself.
I’d assume they’re still building that profile while you use the product, but you won’t see any ads, and can still delete the data from the various points like you’ve mentioned.
I paid for YouTube Premium until they started showing me ads for YouTube TV (and maybe YouTube Red at the time?). Cancelled and got into DNS adblocking.
Maybe this was something country or region specific. I don’t remember ever seeing ads for TV, Red, or other products with my US premium subscription. Now, some channels will promote specific products in their videos (like the mini ads some do for square space, nordvpn, etc), but YouTube, now has a button you can click to jump over that garbage.
Other people are mentioning that in the US there are two tiers of Premium, "Full" and "Lite", but I only see one tier in my country (fully ad-free, allows downloads).
Of all of the sites/apps that are immune to DNS adblocking, I thought YouTube was at the top of the list. Not that DNS adblocking isn’t a good thing, but I’d think Google & meta would make sure they couldn’t be defeated so easily.
Someone willing and able to pay for something as frivolous as Instagram or Snapchat makes them priceless to an advertiser. They want to make it easier to identify those people.
But yeah, when Snapchat rolled out their subscription program, I was all set to buy it to get rid of the annoying ads and AI in my chat list, then I realized I could do none of that. So now I just use it a lot less, which is probably better for them anyway.
You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on, since it means you have disposable income to spend on something as useless as instagram or facebook.
Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest and sell your data AND take your money.
You WILL be getting ads in the app, though. There's nothing in the article that says you won't. This is like Snapchat's subscription. You get more features, but still have the ads. This isn't replacing "if it's free, you're the product", it's "if you're willing to pay, you're an even more valuable product".
People who spew I'd rather pay, I'd rather pay often majorly underestimate how expensive Google and Facebook would have to be in the western world to offset the ad revenue per person. The irony is this is especially true for you if money is no object to you, as you'd be disproportionately valuable to the ad machine. It's not going to be ten bucks folks.
You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America.
So <$5 per month for someone in the developed world to keep using Instagram and stop being the product. If they redesigned the app around what’s best for users vs advertisers, it actually seems like a great deal, considering many people spend multiple hours per day on apps like these.
Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.
I don’t watch enough YouTube to warrant that. My elderly father on the other hand, who watches several hours of YouTube per day on his television, finally got YouTube premium and has found it to be life changing. The TV YouTube app regularly shows 2+ minutes of unskipable adds per video.
That was a great deal when it came bundled with YouTube music. When they bizarrely tried to merge the two products so that when I was interested in watching videos, all I got was music video recommendations, it lost its lustre.
Now I would rather just pay for a couple Patreons. I heard there's some new pay to use YouTube thing out there that creators are pushing, I can't remember the name but I hopped on it and didn't see any extra content beyond what's offered on YouTube so I don't see the point.
Oh and before I got grayjay so I could have ad free casting of videos, premium was nice for when watching on the tv.
Considering cancelling mine because they've introduced ads to it in the form of undismissable "purchase the product being discussed here" affiliate popups.
It's without a doubt one of the best value for money subscription available, except for electricity, water, a library subscription.
There's an endless amount of the highest quality videos available on YouTube. But you need to let the algorithm understand what you like by using the conveniently named "Like" and "Dislike" buttons.
I've never paid Google for anything. I usually get a check from them. What does Google sell? Office clone, ads, map api credits, search api credits, ad free youtube, ai credits sometimes phones and speakers that get bricked?
I’m pretty confident that at least 95% of HN users use adblocking so clearly the users are not worth much to the ad companies. Today I have absolutely zero ads on my devices.
most-all of the algorithm-served content (not from my friends list) is ad content, even if it's not a meta-served ad.
all content (even those who make legitimate content, if they intend on making a living on content) is just ads packaged in fancy UGC. we've reached a point of no return for ads and user targeting
You've missed the point of the comment that you've replied to. There's a well known adverse selection effect because the people who would pay for no ads are exactly the people who you most want to be able to serve ads to: people with lots of disposable income, and people who are power users who see the most ads.
As a result the actual amount that they would need to charge for an ad-free version is higher than the average revenue per user, possibly significantly so.
edit: you can look at YouTube premium for an example of this in practice. It's $16/mo for no ads. That's around 2-3x or more what their revenue per user is.
The amount of money you spend doesn’t affect your disposable income, just your savings (beyond calculating interest). Unless we have different definitions of income or disposable.
I think we are missing another angle of getting the data. Information is also power. Power to influence people (e.g. Cambridge Analytica). So paying will not stop the data collection. Actually I doubt anything will, unless people really push the regulators to do their job.
This is true. But they would at least design the app around maximizing user satisfaction with the service (to keep you paying), vs maximizing time spent on the app (i.e. through making it addictive) in order to increase ad revenue. The current incentives are perverse.
That's a nice idea, but then there are all of the times we've started paying for services to have an ad-free experience, only to then have them toss ads back into the mix.
So it seems to go in capitalism sadly. If we could maintain healthy competition and avoid collusion, maybe we would be allowed to vote with our wallets. But right now that seems like a distant fantasy.
>> So <$5 per month for someone in the developed world to keep using Instagram and stop being the product.
This is only true if everyone does it; Why would they stop advertising for a tiny market, especially if they can get both? Why decrease the value of the tracking on a smaller userbase? Sales conversion says you'd have to charge $50 or $500 a month and you'd have a much smaller base; does social media like this even work with a fraction of the people?
Why would you include the money required to pay shareholders, pay the humongous parts of the company doing ad tech, the lobbying money, the fine money, etc. What is the cost of running a social media site?
I have previously calculated that Mastodon costs including development are on the order of 1 EUR/person/year [1]. Even if you 10x it, it's nothing. Facebook does nothing more technically complicated than the forums of the 90s. It's just smarter design.
I am not. I am explicitly saying to offset revenue from ads. That's a different question. Best of luck getting Facebook-level distribution in your 1 EUR Mastodon.
There are no technical reasons preventing the Mastodon federated network from scaling to billions of users. An individual server might not be able to scale to even 10 million users, but that is by design. There should be thousands or better tens of thousands of servers each supporting a small number of users, with moderation handled at the server level.
"Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest [and sell] your data AND take your money." (Meta sells access not data)
Google has been doing this for a while with YouTube
The data collection and surveillance will of course be used to support online advertising services. The ads can be delivered outside YouTube by other Alphabet business units or partners
There seems to be a myth that paying so-called "tech" companies solves the problem of data collection, surveillance and online advertising. As if for every subscriber the company will voluntarily collect less data, perform less surveillance and sell less ad services, leaving that money on the table
The truth is that these subscribers, by paying the companies that perform data collection, surveillance and advertising services, are actually subsidising the practice
Also the ads are not just classical ads for coca cola or a mattress sale, but people and organizations paying to boost their content in the feed, which can be all kinds of manipulation, political, but also more organic looking brand management or astroturfing. Marketing is way more nowadays than just straightforward "here is a product you may be interested in, buy it".
And YouTube recently (and silently) started approving multiple in-add ads for videos longer than 20 minutes. They destroyed the long-form content creators with their shorts push, and now it looks like they're trying to recover a little.
You can accomplish "no ads" and arguably substantially less tracking without Premium, though, with (e.g.) firefox and ublock origin. The only downside is an occasional ignorable warning that you're "seeing interruptions".
I'd suggest getting them money through patreon, kofi or whatever patrons system they use instead. That's much safer for them than YT ad money and helps them feel less pressure when they get demonetized or whatnot.
I probably watch too many channels to pay them each outside youtube, it will become quickly logistically unmanageable, if not unaffordable. The maximum I can do is probably 5 channels or so.
I don't subscribe to "YouTube Premuim" and I get no ads there
I avoid using Google's Javascript to play other peoples' uploaded videos
I get so much relief out of avoiding the Javascript, telemetry, data collection, behavioural surveillance, "recommendations" and ads, and whatever nonsense Google is doing behind the scenes
> You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on
No, qqtt is correct that if you're paying, you get a vote. It may not be all that much of a vote, but it's more than you'd have if you weren't paying, and Meta will pay attention to it.
For a recent example of how this works, consider that with the post-October-7th wave of pro-Palestinian activism on US college campuses, a lot of rich Jews moved to squelch it as best they could -- not by offering new donations conditional on universities adopting their favored political positions, but by threatening to suspend their existing, habitual, "unconditional" donations.
The 'vote' is real. But it is 'darwinian'. It's not that animals develop a certain adaptation on purpose in order to survive. Instead, out of many random changes an adaptation emerges by selection: those that are the most advantageous get the chance to pass on their genes.
If everybody stops using meta apps and starts using signal, bluesky, mastodon, etc., meta would instantly transform their business (if they still can make a profit).
The problem is, subtly harvesting data from and even shoveling ads into paid subscriptions actually doesn't make consumers immediately and massively cancel their subs. So you can make a profit from subscriptions alone, or make an even larger profit by also collecting and monetizing your customers data. Guess who will win?
If it's a tech company it's not "if it's free you're the product" it's just "you're the product" nowadays. I am so happy kids these days no longer trust tech because I'd hate to see how exploited they'd be otherwise.
Maybe hthe GP is confident enough to have passed by the shallow indicator of displaying their wealth? The richest people I know personally (and who I deeply respect) absolutely delight in people under-estimating them, assuming they're "poor plebs" like the rest of us. They like money, recognize it's important and appreciate what it allows, but feel no need to advertise it.
Ah, so you generally think about how other people perceive if you have money or not. Enough to answer an internet stranger inquiring about your wealth, and flexing about retiring at 40 (congrats).
Why would you want to signal that? It relates in no way as to what kind of person you are. In fact, the richer you are, the more questions I have about how you got it and who got shafted along the way.
For attracting members of the opposite sex and wanting to connect with other people of similar wealth as their values and interests more closely correspond with your own. I don't know if you noticed, but there are cultural differences across socio-economic classes.
What do I value? I believe I live in a society where wealth is earned through hard work. It would be awful living in a society where I wrongly think everyone who has something I don't earned it through nefarious means, and there is no way to be an honest broker and create wealth.
I wouldn't, you wouldn't, and countless millions also wouldn't.
But there is clearly a demographic who do use social media to signal lifestyle status, often using that lifestyle status to sell products of various kinds.
The erosion of enthusiast fandom into paid influencer "fandom" is whole subculture.
I don't think anyone ever paid the whatsapp subscription fee. I remember they announced it, nobody accepted paying it and the app kept functionning and they dropped the idea.
Friends of mine did for Android or the app stopped functioning. You also had to pay a one time fee to even download it on iOS. But yeah, most users didn't have to.
Whatsapp metadata is one of the strongest signals about you. Your friends and family and your patterns of texting tells quite a bit information about you.
That's ignoring that WhatsApp has been free for a long time and was end to end encrypted. Then a multi billion dollar corporation bought it and has slowly whittled away at it.
You're right it's a good thing, but I think they're maybe 10 years too late. The issue is that their product is hateful, non-functional, and my feelings toward the brand are probably more negative than any other brand I can think of. So why would I give them money? It's a tough sell.
The only truth here is that meta is preparing for the AI bot apocalypse. When everything turns into AI noise, people will move on. Segmenting real (paying) users and bots is a strategy to sustain their business model, not welfare.
> By having material subscription revenue coming in for things outside the advertising space, the product managers can justify investing in features that otherwise would be passed up due to lack of revenue potential from advertising.
You’re a Meta decision maker presented with 3 options. Which one do you pick? (remember, you’re not you…you’re a Meta decision maker trying to justify a trillion dollar valuation).
- Possible additional ad revenues
- Possible additional subscription revenues
- Possible additional ad and subscription revenues
> credit card itself can’t be used to ad targeting
Incorrect.
Credit card networks / issuers explicitly describe using payment, spending, and your personal data,
for marketing, personalization, audience segmentation, and advertising.
Mastercard’s privacy notice states that it may use personal and transaction-related information to:
“Provide you with personalized services and recommendations”
“Offer and support loyalty programs”
“Provide content and advertising tailored to your individual interests”
“Analyze spending behavior to improve the effectiveness of marketing programs and advertising.”
Visa has also historically offered an opt-out specifically for using card transaction data…
If only I could get rich, structured data access to my spending data... but many banks only allow pdf statement downloads, in inconvenient ways, and their UIs for drilling down into data...
I'm fine with the static ads in the digitised print edition and the paper edition I get on Sataruday (even though I find some objectionable), but I block any and all digital ads with uBlock Origin, whether I'm a subscriber or not. I pay for a good national newspaper; they either make do with that or lose me as a long-time subscriber.
Your lack of complaining is expected and depended on, but I do encourage your continued enthusiasm in that acceptance! Someone's bottom line depends on it, and they probably make way more money than you so they really need it!
Insufficient information. Each option will address a different part of the market with a different size. Unless the potential revenue is estimated for each option, an informed decision is not possible.
> this is probably a positive thing for Meta products
If it was a subscription that eliminated all ads AND enshittification anti-patterns, like not putting every single notification, 'share my...' and 'show me...' option on separate toggles helpfully sub-divided into a dozen or more separate pages - I would be all in.
Seriously, what if Meta just said, in effect, "give us $XX a year" and you will be a "VIP Account" that's invisible to all our analytics systems, data collection, aggregation and profiling. The only metric where you will even be visible to our reporting systems is "VIP Account Revenue" as your payments hit our account. We will not care (or even know) if your usage is literally zero minutes a year.
I'm sure all the reasons you're thinking of for why Meta would never do this are probably correct. Those same reasons are why the reasonable-sounding thought "this does give a meaningful voice to their customers who pay" is moot. I believe there is no subscription amount Meta would accept to genuinely shift their entire way of thinking about even a small subset of users. Therefore, this much smaller subscription won't actually change anything that matters. This is just the diary farm trying to collect extra money by renting plastic stall decorations to the cows their business owns and milks. By definition these features will be trivial and purely cosmetic because anything that actually changes user behavior, would impact the real business and will be decided based on that.
The only way for this model to work, is for governments to put high pressure on tech giants to put the breaks on the whole surveillance & data selling business. Otherwise they will take your money and sell your data at the same time.
I wonder if fully forbidding personalised ads will actually make gdp of developed nations to shrink.
That’d be more relatable if they weren’t actively trying to remove encryption from their messaging to spy and serve even more ads at the same time they’re trying to charge a fee for the pleasure of giving them your data to sell.
These products already do what basically everyone wants them to do.
The problem is now people are conditioned to having their privacy violated so they are still the product and they will pay to be the product.
The network effects with a product like WhatsApp are strong so that this opens the door to dark patterns for the non paying customers. After enough time the same level of effort will go into the now subscription app that went into it when it was free.
Except their "impersonation protection" subscription sounds more like a racket than a product. Basically, pay us or we'll spoil your brand. Now, they want to charge point addicts for getting access to very basic and limited stats about their 2 seconds videos.
> How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers.
Maybe. Or maybe this is the final stop on the route to enshittification: bill both the advertisers and the users.
> The thing that determines whether you’re the product isn’t whether you’re paying for the product: it’s whether market power and regulatory forbearance allow the company to get away with selling you.
Or more simply:
> Companies don’t make you the product because you don’t pay — they make you the product because you can’t stop them.
As far as feature development goes, Meta isn't looking under the couch cushions for change. If they want to invest in a feature, they will.
> How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product"
As of late, not many times. Because it’s become clear that for the big players you’re the product even if you pay. See for example Netflix or Hulu, where you pay a subscription and are advertised to.
> How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product"
This is old school. Now we know for a fact from the "enshittification" concept that you are always the product. If they can keep abusing you AND make you pay on top of that, it's better than abusing you without making you pay.
There are no good monopolies, the solution really is to fight them.
None of the packages mention anything about removing ads do they? They're some silly premium features like custom stickers and themes. I don't see anything about removing ads.
C'mon, it's the oldest trick in MBA book: make a much-used service paid, make the free version of it terrible and you force people to get the paid service.
Sisters, a 8B local model that hallucinates is better than that 50bn in sweaty VR shit they made. It is what it is, slap a monthly fee on the 3B model and move on, I suppose.
I have serious doubts that Meta is aiming to improve these products. Every time I open Instagram - ironically of course - it just seems like more and more AI slop.
I used to think like that, but then I realized that
> if you are paying for the product, nothing guarantees that you are not the product anyway
Companies like money and they will have no qualms against double dipping. Even if you refuse to be their customer (and thus they lose the revenue coming from you) as long as the majority of their customers are ok with being a product, they will keep doing it.
Their offer for subscribers are nothing but beads and sequins. A genuine offer [the kind i could accept] should contemplate an ad, bot and algo-free experience.
There used to be a single streaming service that had the majority of the content with zero ads. Now we are back to ad-ridden cable TV pricing with nearly zero product features. Paying these shitbirds will not cause them to invest in the product. Meta isn't even generating any of the content, at least streaming services are doing that much with the money they are given.
I think given that meta has already sort of destroyed so many things, it's difficult to see this measure causing any _harm_. I'm not sure it's a panacea, as since you said meta will just take your money and track you. But the "tracking you ship" has already sailed. Maybe in a perfect world the "taking your money" bit is successful enough that they try to make that experience better? Ideally, meta would just take 100% of its intellectual assets and pay to have them subducted by the Mariana Trench, but I don't think that'll be happening for me.
I'd have been happy to pay for a WhatsApp-like service if they had not been acquired. Flawless service for like a decade, no complains. Only issue was the difficulty of moving between Android and iOS.
Meta? Fuck off. We all know they're already doing awful stuff with our data, they've had more bugs last year than all of whatsapps previous history combined, and whatever price they request now is step one for enshittification.
A lot of posters here are missing the part where people use Meta products to market their art, performance artists, visual artists, musician, digital entertainment artists, craftsmen, etc all rely on the network effect to be discovered. Until you can replace that then people wont just use email, txt their audience, etc.
And just to say it is actually sad there is no alternative because most of those artists dont really gain a valuable network effect from posting there. But it is how younger unestablished peoples establish themselves as existing. There are entire comedy/music scenes that essentially require you to have an Instagram account.
Remember clearly the first time that message popped up, asking for $1/year, and I think you could basically "skip for now" and then it'd pop back up again later again. I remember thinking how brilliant it was, just hitting 100K active users in a year would be $100K, more than enough for a person, and at their scale they'd make it work long-term. Then of course eventually the $20B purchase happened and it became a product in someone's portfolio instead essentially.
I use WhatsApp for almost all my communication with family and friends. I'm also happy to pay for things that improve my experience.
...but it's unclear what this subscription would give me. The announcement has no real details, the article is light on detail, and the WhatsApp website has no mention of this subscription.
I get that it's hard. What I want is a good text and call app, and that's hard to charge for at scale. But every feature that Meta has added to justify charging (AI, stories, profiles, etc), makes the product worse for me and makes me less likely to pay for it.
I looked for this in the article and I couldn't find any mention of it. I suspect no. And I suspect that's why it's not mentioned in the article: they think people won't notice.
This seems smart of them in the sense that many creator/website owners have lost significant traffic that Google used to send their way and so are reluctantly pivoting back to paying more attention to social - for discovery.
But speaking as someone who deleted a high following FB page that I probably shouldn't have because the back end of it was so infuriating, I don't understand this offering. It seems like a lot of bling and clutter. Most people who need to use Meta for biz reasons want the same thing - live support that is not a bot or a human that may as well be a bot.
And not to get too granular but if you've used IG lately, for example, you notice that trying to do anything on the back end (eg: set up up some boosted posts or schedule things) takes the user through a maze and sometimes you end up in the old legacy Facebook pages, which has links that don't relate to any of the contemporary features. It sounds minor but it essentially barely functions and each click to confirm something sends you to another section to confirm something else. You also need a FB page to do anything on an IG page and a tonne of other petty thwartings. The fact that their brand new subscriptions/Meta platform seems just as confusing is alarming. I don't know how a company with this much money can not design an un-hellish back end or offer reasonable customer support.
Their A.I. monitoring is also completely off the chain, closing accounts and locking profiles for opaque reasons that cannot be questioned.
I feel like I can explain this away with what I imagine happened in most middle managers driven development companies:
the most factorio-esque spaghetti decision driven sunk cost fallacy thing ever.
A new paid social media network with high privacy settings would defeat meta products quite easily. From what I understand, it costs around 27$ a year per user for Meta to run the business. At 5$ per month with limitations on size of your profile (like number of pictures), it would be quite easy to run a social media of this sort. This kinda of social media is what eventually everyone will move towards (and currently want). Small social circles, extremely private, and connections and discovery in very limited ways that allow you to maintain privacy and your 'inner' circle.
Social media is here to stay, unfortunately. Meta, LinkedIn, X, I wouldn't invest in the long term.
No data collection for any other reason than security practices, and for reasons that pertain to public security (not necessarily legal). A 30 day retention policy would be more than enough. Without discovery, public profiles, advertising and usages targeted towards you engaging more with the platform, the data collection and telemetry becomes quite unnecessary.
If you are paying for the usage (mostly server and development costs), your data need not be used for anything other than actually improving the product and security.
Currently the data is purely to extract profits and keep you hooked. This is what they have made you believe social media is about. Its not. You aren't hooked on iMessage and FaceTime scrolling reels and wasting hours. It's actually used to connect with people.
was never end to end, was you to server and then server to other party. Meaning Zuky boi always had access to your messages in clear (and NSA + all other 3 letters agencies)
I was paying for the ads-free subscripton for instagram and I recently I canceled as a way to reduce social media usage. And the ad version of Instagram is so annoying that it is helping a lot more.
If this new sub becomes a status signaling, it might work.
The article mentions that this is a subscription for additional features. It doesn't say anywhere that you won't get ads. I think the ads-free subscription option is only available in certain markets, like the UK.
I cannot imagine that students, kids, or half the world where paying 3 usd a month is impossible, will keep using whatsapp when they have to pay a fee. They will look for alternatives immediately. Telegram?
But actually this is a good move. I tried to convince my family and friends to use alternatives, without success. But now I see hope.
Have stopped using FB and IG years ago, was stuck with WhatsApp because of half the world using it.
WhatsApp feels like one of the few products where people might actually pay. It's become critical infrastructure for communication in many countries, not just another social app.
I don't mean irreplaceable. I mean it's become the default communication layer for a huge number of people, which gives it a level of importance beyond a typical social app.Sure, people would move. But the value isn't WhatsApp itself it's the fact that everyone you need to talk to is already there. That's what makes it hard to replace overnight.
It's very difficult to do business in Western Europe without Whatsapp. I have probably asked more than 60 people to switch to Signal and the social burden it introduces (i.e. asking a new acquaintance to install a new app) can have negative signalling effects (e.g. you don't adapt, create more work, why do you care so much about privacy, etc.)
I personally abhore Facebook (and IG,Whatsapp) and don't want to use any of them; I have uninstalled/reinstalled Whatsapp many times. Out of practical concern, I now only use Whatsapp in business settings where it would create tension and create social awkwardness not to. But I dislike the fact that I do.
Okay, what are the reasons? It's difficult to see how Meta is in any way more trustworthy than the country which Telegram is from. I trust TG secret chats much more than Whatsapp's supposed e2e.
In my experience: Only for drug dealers, cheaters, people doing sex stuff secretly for whatever reason (e.g. not being out of the closet), "underground/alternative vibe" communication channels (e.g. raves, hackers) and russophiles...
It's a standard chat application, people are also using Facebook, WhatsApp, etc for illegal/immoral discussions. I've been using it as my main chat client for more than 10y and have never used or felt the need to use the community channels, it's just a great messenger.
Doing illegal stuff in public Telegram channels is extremely stupid, they aren't encrypted, you're pretty much giving your information to law enforcement (I know Telegram is often blocking sharing info on their users to law enforcement, but you can be sure agencies are monitoring your telegram channel discussions).
The Russophile comment is pretty frustrating given Telegram is the most commonly used messenger in Ukraine and lots of Eastern Europe...
Why not settle on a chat which actually uses e2e encryption by default though?
There's truth to the Russophile comment though, Telegram is regularly used by GRU and the FSB to recruit people to commit acts of vandalism and terror and is pretty well documented. It's also commonly used to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. My mum has fallen for several of these via Telegram.
Sorry for your mum. FWIW you have the same content on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit.
Telegram has a larger Russian speaking audience because of the founder, who created VK in Russia. But that doesn’t make it Russophile. Ukraine is organizing pretty much all their resistance on Telegram…
The public channels are where the trash content is, I’ve never used them myself, you have to explicitly look for that feature, it’s not like they are shown in the chat interface directly.
> Why not settle on a chat which actually uses e2e encryption by default though?
Because I care more about the quality of user experience, and Telegram has been awesome to use since I first tried it
All my close family now use Signal after me and a sibling pushed for this. That's 30+ persons. The network is growing too, since all children and new partners join in 1:1 and groups.
All my close family now use Signal after me and a sibling pushed for this. That's 30+ persons. The network is growing too, since all children and new partners join in 1:1 and groups.
We like having two apps: WA for friends, Signal for family. There are only few reasons to mix the two.
Yep, same in South Africa. I still haven't accepted those T's & C's from a few years ago so can't chat with most businesses. In some cases there is no other option, so I just... don't use that company.
On the other hand, I've convinced a lot of my friends to get Signal. I'm the only person that they speak to on Signal, but that's fine ;)
We work on helping people move to Signal from WhatsApp. It'll be easier once they have a Communities feature, as WhatsApp is very far ahead there.
The main advice we got is that although you need to migrate individuals, the main focus should be on migrating channels. If you have a family group chat, that's the target. Tell people about how Meta spies on them, etc, and then support everyone in the channel to individually set up Signal if necessary.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, realizes that using Whatsapp by default (which everyone accepts) synchronizes their entire contacts list to Meta. It's a golden trove of valuable data for an ad targeting company.
People don't realize that there is so much that can be inferred about you from your contacts. Whether you have kids, which schools they go to, and similar personal information.
All of this is not even on the radar and people reduce privacy to "whether someone listens in on my calls or conversations" and tend to brush it off, because they honestly don't care about that part.
Signal doesn't make it easier by refusing to allow encrypted iCloud backups for so many years (which means people lose data when they lose their phones!) and recently introducing a subscription backup service instead of allowing me to do an encrypted iCloud backup. It's hard to explain to people that they should use an inferior product just because of "privacy".
I've seen more interest in Telegram among my contacts in recent years and less of it in Signal. I managed to grab my partner, sister and my friend to use Signal but they all three still use facebook along with whatsapp and doesn't seem they want to leave it.
The recent yet another revival of Gadu Gadu pass by without much fanfare. For those unfamiliar: GG was created by single guy upon ICQ idea of UIN's and quickly become the default messenger in Poland some 20 years ago - even gov't used it at some point. But it lost its position to Skype, Whatsapp and Viber. I admire somewhat the dedication this new company has in restoring our "homemade" network. But it's way too late: new generation of people who's mainly familiar with big corporations services have grown up and GG has nothing that'd made it replace these.
> The new "Plus" plans are tailored to each individual app, with Facebook Plus and Instagram Plus focused more on social expression, while WhatsApp Plus focuses on personalization and messaging.
If only Google Plus lived long enough to see this day...
I think this is all theatrics to avoid EU regulation. Subscriptions for Meta products have already been a thing in the EU for several months.
It went a bit like this:
- EU mandates that users should be given the option to opt out from non-essential cookies.
- Meta responds by implementing an ad-free subscription-based model in EU, which allows them to dodge regulation.
- EU of course sees through their scheme and prepares to sanction them.
- Meta rolls-out subscriptions worldwide, so that it becomes harder for EU to claim that subscriptions were specifically created for dodging EU regulation.
I am a happy Instagram user. As a Ukrainian, this is the only connection left with lots of my friends now as we are scattered around the world. And I would happily pay $2.99/m for Instagram to have those better features.
Problem is, facebook WILL raise the prices on these subscriptions every few months until they could not anymore. So I will have to pay probably like $12.99/m in a couple of years.
I've ditched those forms of social media, and haven't really had trouble keeping in touch with most people I'd like to keep in touch with, whether it's emails, calls, texts or regular meets/activities in meatspace. The people in your life who truly care about you will make a genuine effort to remain in touch with you.
If people don't want to make that effort, why do I need to be connected to what they're doing every day?
I don't believe the willingness to install yet-another-messaging-app is a good measure of friendship value.
Between SMS, messenger, instagram, whatsapp, discord, slack, ms teams, signal, there's a point where juggling too much messaging apps become a burden instead of convenience.
Nice little detail - WhatsApp was a $1/year subscription before they sold to Zuckerberg ... with the exact subscription cost now conspicuously missing from the app's Wikipedia page.
Except it wasn’t for all users. IIRC it either didn’t show for all, or it was the WinRAR equivalent of you being able to say “maybe later” and it left you alone for a long while.
So now you can pay $3.99/mo for the privilege of custom profile fonts and animated reactions while still getting served ads between Reels. Truly the premium doomscrolling experience.
I do not need any of the three, so i will not pay.
True, a lot of other people i know, including family and corpo, use Whatsapp. I will not pay to stay in contact with them. They can go back to sms or email if they want to. Or pay for me.
Meta’s reputation has eroded so much that many will view this as an act of desperation rather than a chance to reframe social media. The idea of paying for social media to become the customer rather than the product has been both discussed and tried. There is such a deep lack of trust from years of bad deeds that I doubt anything positive will come out of this.
Not just that, but there's no mention of removing ads or tracking. So it sounds like people get to pay for the privilege of being the product on a platform which has degraded to the point of being absolutely useless.
I can't imagine the economics would work to support anything close to what they make from the ads & tracking model. They'd probably have to charge $39.99/month from everyone to compete.
$196.2 B ad revenue / 3.58 B daily users (as the average rate over the year) comes out to < $5/month from everyone.
Of course, the trick is you don't actually get "everyone". You get the users with more money, who are more valuable ad targets. Still, $39.99/m seems like it'd be pretty high.
Tell ya what. Give me an absolute guarantee - legally-enforced - that you'll never share any of my data ever again (unless subpoenaed or warranted) and will stop using my news feed as an ad feed, and I might consider it.
Fire Mark Zuckerberg into the stratosphere and I'll will you my worldly possessions.
I cant see many paying for whatsapp or facebook/instagram. These are now taken for granted as being "free". Im pretty sure users would just migrate to signal/telegram/other if it ever became a paid service.
Facebook is so doomed. I recently logged in (after close to 10 years), and whooah the feed was wild.
90% was these weird pages having very sexual teasing shorts, or bikini girls / latex pants etc. None of the pages were something is had ever seen before, or even followed.
The rest 9% was AI gen low qulity shorts, and the remaining 1% was actually from someone i did was friends with, but even thise seemes like some tool had generated them, as in "follow my new business page" etc.
The facebook that once was seem to be totally gone by now, and im not even sure what it is anymore.
I never got an instgram account, but i guess its the same low quality shit over there.
I would be willing to pay for IG subscription that's ad-free. It's gotten hilariously terrible right now that every 3-4 stories has a 2-page ad with a button on it. It's gotten so bad to the point where I stopped checking stories.
Subscribe on Facebook.com or Instagram.com:
€5.99 per month for one account, plus €4 per month (or price in applicable local currency) for each additional account in the same Accounts Center
canyp | a day ago
DANmode | 23 hours ago
fullshark | 20 hours ago
suddenlybananas | a day ago
jjordan | 23 hours ago
Was it spammers that caused this mass migration to ever more closed platforms?
tim-projects | 23 hours ago
NegativeK | 23 hours ago
Open protocols are still there and still used, but we're sad because the smaller userbase is frustrating. Just like how people still publish human written content to personal blogs, but they're proportionally non-existent.
WarmWash | 17 hours ago
Open-source always has a certain level of "jank" that tends to decimate interest from common folks.
regexorcist | 23 hours ago
tgv | 23 hours ago
carlosjobim | 20 hours ago
rossjudson | 23 hours ago
YesBox | 23 hours ago
I have a server (for my game) with about 1000 people. Out of the 300 people logged in, 50 of them have custom profiles.
So, it seems like a good idea for Meta.
fontain | 23 hours ago
I’ll be surprised if Meta’s subscriptions are as popular as Discord’s without being advertising free. Cosmetics are liked amongst Discord’s audience of nerds, but not Meta’s audience of normal people.
Very interested to see how this works out for Meta. Since they’re not excluding ads, it’s basically free money, so they may as well offer these subscriptions.
rhines | 23 hours ago
lukeschlather | 23 hours ago
Marsymars | 17 hours ago
But also, definitionally, the users who are willing to pay the most are the ones who the see ads as the biggest anti-value (i.e. cost) to themselves - so they'll be the ones most likely to not use the service if they're not given an ad-free option - cutting down the average user value anyway.
airstrike | 23 hours ago
sillysaurusx | 23 hours ago
YesBox | 23 hours ago
sillysaurusx | 23 hours ago
YesBox | 22 hours ago
See for yourself: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2287430/Metropolis_1998/
pauldub | 19 hours ago
lobf | 16 hours ago
ro_bit | 23 hours ago
YesBox | 22 hours ago
micromacrofoot | 18 hours ago
j45 | 23 hours ago
Animats | 23 hours ago
ravenstine | 23 hours ago
HARRIS: We had an arrangement!
KRELL: You did what I wanted. I don't need you anymore.
HARRIS: You agreed that both our governments would benefit if the two of us worked together.
KRELL: And you believed me.
avaer | 23 hours ago
alex1138 | 23 hours ago
Ohhhh but he was young! Be easy on him
(/s)
shevy-java | 23 hours ago
dataflow | 23 hours ago
x0x0 | 20 hours ago
f33d5173 | 19 hours ago
embedding-shape | 18 hours ago
soupspaces | 14 hours ago
meta_ai_x | 23 hours ago
alex1138 | 23 hours ago
pj_mukh | 23 hours ago
I realize Meta's data shows that our user revealed preferences tells them that we like all the dopamine hijacking garbage but that's like saying "Well users like drugs, so we gave them more". Let me pay you to give me just the vitamins, and none of the sugar.
tim-projects | 23 hours ago
freedomben | 23 hours ago
lostlogin | 23 hours ago
It an outlay of $50 a moth. Probably better to pay 50/number of friends though.
rkomorn | 22 hours ago
lostlogin | 22 hours ago
fsflover | 23 hours ago
dreamcompiler | 23 hours ago
fsflover | 22 hours ago
john01dav | 22 hours ago
fsflover | 10 hours ago
They are not for profit, developed by the matrix.org foundation.
hgoel | 22 hours ago
No custom emojis, no self-chat, embeds are inconsistent (e.g. encrypted rooms), multi-image uploads aren't a thing in many clients, adding text when sending an attachment isn't a thing, just to name things we've run into over the years. Most of these have been brought up to the devs many years ago, only to spend forever in spec hell and never actually make it into a release.
We're just tolerating these, because we explicitly moved off discord to have control over our data, but being tech savvy we can handle this. It's nowhere near good enough that I could use it with less savvy people.
komali2 | 14 hours ago
It's a hard blocker. I was running an engineering co-op off it and the onboarding difficulties was what finally led us to switch to discord.
All members are good engineers, but the client apps just had too many rough edges.
I really want the project to succeed so I'll keep checking in on it every year.
charcircuit | 15 hours ago
fsflover | 10 hours ago
charcircuit | 8 hours ago
fsflover | 8 hours ago
lukeschlather | 23 hours ago
Facebook is designed more as a shared scrapbook, with the assumption that data is precious and you want to share it with your community, and you should err on the side of oversharing so you don't lose any precious moments. Signal is in no way a replacement for Facebook.
DANmode | 22 hours ago
tim-projects | 22 hours ago
That's... Just not true
> Facebook is designed more as a shared scrapbook
Have you used Facebook in the last 5 years? Its nothing like this at all.
lukeschlather | 22 hours ago
I use it all the time. Yesterday I was talking to a friend, and we were reminiscing about visiting another friend's house, and we looked up some old birthday party invitations to help us remember when we had been there.
pj_mukh | 21 hours ago
lukeschlather | 20 hours ago
Larrikin | 20 hours ago
jsrozner | 23 hours ago
pj_mukh | 23 hours ago
That they went past that to just kill their own golden goose is what is now reversible via a payment plan. That might be their only saving grace on this now managed decline.
TFNA | 20 hours ago
bflesch | 23 hours ago
uyzstvqs | 23 hours ago
canyp | 22 hours ago
captn3m0 | 22 hours ago
I’ve been considering it but I am not sure if it drops just ads or suggested posts as well.
tmaly | 22 hours ago
apsurd | 20 hours ago
Yeah you'd do it to prove a point. 6 months later, no way in hell.
pibaker | 20 hours ago
schubidubiduba | 19 hours ago
apsurd | 19 hours ago
Youtube legitimately has some quality content. But I ended my subscription because fundamentally, streamlining the path to more Youtube usage is self-enabling devil’s work.
Point being: Im not convinced paying money to these companies is ultimately going to result in a healthier, more safe more private experience, no matter what they claim.
pmontra | 15 hours ago
fsflover | 6 hours ago
Why would you trust Meta to keep its promises?
Even Apple is not to be trusted with that, see, e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433
pj_mukh | 19 hours ago
Meanwhile, FB has all my network that I can't recreate or self-host so yes, I would pay that.
tencentshill | 13 hours ago
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680125...
fhennig | 7 hours ago
tencentshill | 2 hours ago
kleton | 20 hours ago
I think that is the Feed's tab, though I have not used the blue app in a long time
fooker | 17 hours ago
Cider9986 | 15 hours ago
You can change the feeds with extensions or modded apps for free and ads are blocked by default in any good browser.
lucaspiller | 14 hours ago
I basically don't use Facebook any more because of this. Opening the app shows me the most sensationalist, fearmongering and outrage bait content they can find. It's worse than news channels (I haven't watched TV for 20 years). I have auto play turned off, and every few months the setting gets turned back on.
The first few posts I see scrolling through:
- US adds mandatory tips ahead of world cup.
- Woman dies after being hit by Audi in city center.
- There was a huge queue for women's toilets at a tech conference.
- 50% off mattresses.
- Some influencer I don't follow bought 20 rolls of 3M tape from Lidl.
Do I still have friends, do they still post stuff? I only see them in the reels/stories section at the top.
The only reason why I still have Facebook is because of groups. It's the main 'groups' tool people use in my country, so there are various local groups I am part of.
input_sh | 12 hours ago
Traubenfuchs | 8 hours ago
onel | 7 hours ago
documentorium | 6 hours ago
mgrunwald_ | 6 hours ago
ghrl | 5 hours ago
lionkor | 3 hours ago
qweiopqweiop | 23 hours ago
iLoveOncall | 23 hours ago
In the current state those subscriptions will just show your friends that you're a huge loser who's willing to pay for custom backgrounds.
fontain | 23 hours ago
timpera | 19 hours ago
Cider9986 | 15 hours ago
chistev | 17 hours ago
mrweasel | 10 hours ago
Are there new numbers that one can access? I can imagine the value has gone up, but hundreds of dollars seem like a lot.
figglestar | 22 hours ago
AlienRobot | 20 hours ago
WarmWash | 17 hours ago
Would you pay $27/mo for instagram?
mrweasel | 10 hours ago
This sort of looks like a subscription for influencers, organisation and "power users". Even if you turned off the ads, most of people feed, from what I've seen are basically ads they signed up for, e.g. posts from companies, so I doubt that most even care.
SilverElfin | 23 hours ago
dreamcompiler | 23 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
princevegeta89 | 23 hours ago
The only good thing about WhatsApp is, it is used by everyone that I know, so I can connect with them pretty easily and make calls, etc. I hope they don't enshittify it too much to the point where I'll go and use Signal full time.
shevy-java | 23 hours ago
Also youtube, unfortunately. Google does not understand that AI is slowly killing youtube.
I am an expert cat video person, so noticing AI slop is not so hard, but it takes a few seconds (e. g. a mother cat punishing the young cat for "overreach" - the way how the AI video insinuated reality was of course completely false, AI spam slop that lies to real humans). I'd rather wish Google would not waste my time (then again, why am I still using youtube ... one day I'll be degoogled for good. The sooner Google is gone from this planet, the better.)
princevegeta89 | 23 hours ago
Not just that. Even comments, some of those are basically AI crap, cleverly disguised as real users. It is such a waste, honestly. AI has brought upon us a low-quality world to live in, out of nowhere. This is such a pity.
CuriouslyC | 23 hours ago
shevy-java | 23 hours ago
Thank you - I don't want any of that.
What exactly are "fun" features, anyway? Do they take away from my time?
yokoprime | 23 hours ago
flufluflufluffy | 23 hours ago
Ahh, remember the days of livejournal/myspace, where we got all of those “features” for free because your profile is literally a fucking webpage
AlienRobot | 20 hours ago
I blame Bethesda and their horse armor for this.
drnick1 | 23 hours ago
Starman_Jones | 22 hours ago
ryandrake | 19 hours ago
If someone is prepared to not be my friend because they only want to communicate via a Meta app, then I don’t see why I’d want them as a friend.
doom2 | 16 hours ago
The good thing is that it isn't everywhere: Taiwan, Japan, and China usually have apps like Line or WeChat as options. In Europe there's more usage of WhatsApp (which is still Meta owned but also not social media). But in the US (and countries in the Americas), I still see a heavy reliance on Instagram and Facebook.
drnick1 | 12 hours ago
You can use a throwaway account for that or other things such as FB Marketplace. It's not ideal because it generates traffic on FB, but it's better than handing over all your private communications to Zuckerberg.
dmje | 10 hours ago
erremerre | 9 hours ago
wickedsight | 9 hours ago
During local elections over here (Netherlands), it was impossible to find any info from local parties outside of Facebook. Those parties are also the biggest, usually. I ended up voting for the one party that had a website with their plans for that exact reason.
barbazoo | 7 hours ago
itake | 10 hours ago
1/ meta products trigger organic conversations. People post on Instagram and Facebook that they’re traveling and I will reach out to them if I’m close by. People don’t use Signal that way.
2/ the Facebook groups are very useful for local communities. As a traveler, I reach out to Expat groups for feedback.
barbazoo | 7 hours ago
alex1138 | 22 hours ago
You delete a FB acct? It reactivates. Fun! Almost like the company is built off fraud
Iuz | 22 hours ago
derwiki | 20 hours ago
And I hate it. I had deactivated all my Meta accounts but reactivated WhatsApp because of school stuff.
Loughla | 19 hours ago
Unless you're talking about parent groups. Because then you're fucked. Every parent group everywhere uses Facebook or Whatsapp and don't care that not everybody uses it. You will be excluded.
ryandrake | 19 hours ago
derwiki | 19 hours ago
Loughla | 17 hours ago
derwiki | 17 hours ago
grvdrm | 17 hours ago
the_af | 17 hours ago
My daughter's school uses a clunky proprietary platform that is way, way worse than WhatsApp. I wish they used WhatsApp! Actually, they also do this, because being non techies their use of tech is all over the place and they adopted the worst of both worlds: school digital platform (very clunky) and, because it sucks, also WhatsApp. So important communications reach me both ways.
Sigh
carlosjobim | 20 hours ago
For the down voters: Such as finding local business information or events in your community, and tons of other stuff which isn't anywhere else.
Facebook + Instagram already has more current information than the rest of the web combined.
TFNA | 20 hours ago
Ditto for phones, if you mean the PSTN – as time goes on, fewer and fewer people have ever really used that. When people around the world are communicating via their smartphones with a phone-number-based protocol, it’s overwhelmingly WhatsApp, and guess who owns that?
apsurd | 20 hours ago
That definitely sounds harsher than intended. It's a meditation really. Nobody needs FB and Instagram. (please read as a meditation)
TFNA | 20 hours ago
You mention “FB and Instagram”, and I haven’t used either in a decade myself. But the OP did mention “Meta products” and you are ignoring the elephant in the room: WhatsApp. In many countries it has completely replaced the PSTN: you cannot contact a business (they won’t answer normal calls and may not post email addresses), cannot get the necessary info on how to check into the reception-less accommodation one booked, and one will find it hard to maintain contact with people one may well wish to maintain contact with.
Larrikin | 19 hours ago
skillina | 16 hours ago
komali2 | 14 hours ago
Someone might be perfectly happy being your friend, and not understanding why you never come to their parties that they advertise via the group chat on whatever platform, or insta posts or whatever.
"If they cared enough they would message me directly on my obscure to normies messaging platform!" Yeah your best friend might. The greater social circle?
I get it, I'm trying to get everyone on signal or onto federated platforms, but I'm realizing that if I wanna talk to The People, I need to go to where The People are.
isolatedsystem | 13 hours ago
It had a placard in it saying something like "You don't have 100 friends. You have like 4. And that's OK."
The more I'm getting older, the truer this has become. There is something extremely zen-like about letting the past trail away like the wake of a ship, as Watts said.
In an ideal world, those people were dear to me, and me to them, and we would all stay in touch and be one big happy family, n'importe the distance. But it takes plenty out of me just to be there for those that matter most. And for them, putting up with my quirks is burdensome but not an unscalable wall. As it is for me with their quirks in reverse.
kingstoned | 19 hours ago
TFNA | 19 hours ago
In many countries, either WhatsApp or a PSTN number for receiving an SMS is used today for the things that you think are done with email. I have lived in two countries that have highly digitized government services, and they were provided over an official app where email wasn’t part of the signup flow.
Sure, maybe some people use email at work (but WhatsApp has eaten into even that in some regions), but then that address is so associated with work that they don’t use it for social contacts.
ValentineC | 18 hours ago
The best compromise for such people, I guess, would be a work phone number that's solely for business WhatsApp communication.
drnick1 | 12 hours ago
outime | 17 hours ago
Only on HN could someone post a take like this without getting laughed at. Outside our very geeky HN bubble, hardly anyone (let's say in Europe, but all my friends in the US use it as well) uses anything other than WhatsApp. There's literally zero reason for the average user to switch.
wyclif | 16 hours ago
rahkiin | 16 hours ago
In europe we never had free unlimited texts. Internet was cheaper than calling/texting, especially with everyone having wifi at home and work. So a cross-platform messaging app appeared and has replaced text and calling.
wyclif | 16 hours ago
Synaesthesia | 13 hours ago
KoftaBob | 8 hours ago
I always found this peculiar, you would think it would be the other way around. I wonder why that is?
yonatan8070 | 13 hours ago
bee_rider | 12 hours ago
contubernio | 10 hours ago
Some hard core committed communists prefer telegram, but even they usually have to have whatsapp too. No one uses signal or even knows what it is.
prmoustache | 10 hours ago
Most people in Spain still rely and prefer voice calls than messages anyway. I believe half the country must still be illiterate as they manage to send voice message but struggle to send written messages on whatsapp.
On a personal level you lose a bit of information when you don't have whatsapp. For example I didn't join the whatsapp group of my dance class and I am often unaware of stuff they mention on it but that doesn't prevent me to attend said classes.
yurishimo | 8 hours ago
contubernio | 4 hours ago
I am (mostly against my will) in multiple professional and personal Whatsapp groups. Use is constant and daily and unavoidable. It is the principal means of communication in both work and personal settings. Calls are always a second option.
I suspect your experience reflects only partial integration in local culture.
prmoustache | an hour ago
I am in andalusia, hardly the most modern area if you discount the migrants that call themselves expats.
TFNA | 3 hours ago
isolatedsystem | 13 hours ago
As a sibling comment to yours stated, the hardest decision was deciding to stop using Meta.
I have a militant "let the leaves fall where they may" attitude towards stopping relationships with companies I detest (Microsoft, Amazon, Meta...) It all always works out fine.
TFNA | 3 hours ago
NamlchakKhandro | 12 hours ago
AnthonyR | 9 hours ago
jjulius | 3 hours ago
Marsymars | 17 hours ago
I'm not making any serious money off the old stuff I sell, but the alternative to selling it (or even giving away low-value stuff that's still functional) on facebook is basically just throwing it out / destructively recycling it.
skillina | 16 hours ago
I'm willing to give Meta the information that I enjoy old cars, bar trivia, and breakfast sandwich pop-ups.
w-ll | 12 hours ago
adonese | 12 hours ago
NewJazz | 12 hours ago
cheema33 | 10 hours ago
Users.
In Portland, Oregon area Craigslist was popular, but is now a ghost town. Everybody has moved to Facebook marketplace.
Marsymars | 4 hours ago
NewJazz | 12 hours ago
the_af | 17 hours ago
I'm in WhatsApp groups with friends who live abroad, SMS is not an option. We could use another chat app, but then I'd have to convince every friend from every group to use something else. WhatsApp is what every friend I have agrees on.
I belong to several hobby groups that exist only on Facebook or Reddit (or Discord, but I dislike it for several reasons). I'd like to ditch both Facebook and Reddit, but that would mean leaving those hobby groups, and given the joy they bring me, I'm not willing to pull the plug yet.
So you see, it's really not that easy.
pmontra | 15 hours ago
okanat | 15 hours ago
TFNA | 3 hours ago
I don't think you realize how much Telegram is associated with hated Russia and the local far-right in several European countries.
pmontra | 15 minutes ago
laweijfmvo | 17 hours ago
komali2 | 14 hours ago
Or attend an event in person. They advertise their in person events on the meshtastic Facebook group.
rootusrootus | 14 hours ago
jjulius | 4 hours ago
CuriouslyC | 23 hours ago
It's almost like the people still using Meta services are metaphorical bots or low agency human beings.
derwiki | 20 hours ago
mrweasel | 9 hours ago
People don't care about the platform, they just want shit to work and for better or worse, Facebook works for them.
lolive | 20 hours ago
chistev | 17 hours ago
lolive | 6 hours ago
TZubiri | 20 hours ago
pioyi | 19 hours ago
cryo32 | 19 hours ago
We decided to do the same again.
tapoxi | 19 hours ago
They occasionally have a donation popup but it's one of the easiest and least intrusive programs I've ever used, and it just works.
the_af | 13 hours ago
jjulius | 3 hours ago
the_af | 2 hours ago
I value my (various groups of) friends more than I value moving out of WhatsApp, and for what anyway? WhatsApp is perfect for our needs. If it becomes paid-only, we'll move out of it, but not before. I don't need dealing with this kind of nerdy crusade. And I need to have WhatsApp installed anyway for different family members [1] and the parent school groups and official comms from school.
Sorry, but that suggestion is a no-go in the real world. It only works in the micro-bubble of HN.
---
[1] Let me preempt your likely "but convince all of your family of using <thing> instead...". No. Just no.
jjulius | an hour ago
Why do they have to be "willing to move out"? They're free to continue to use whatever they want, but how they get in touch with you might be different. Also, what's up with using "nerd" as a pejorative? Why the hostility?
But at the end of the day, yeah, it's not all that off-base. The measure of how much someone values staying in touch with you is generally going to be reflected in how much effort they put into doing so.
>Sorry, but that suggestion is a no-go in the real world.
What is "the real world"? Is there a standard definition that is applicable to everyone everywhere? I live in "the real world", too, and have no issue conversing with all of my family, parents from my kid's school, and official notifications from school without WhatsApp or social media. Texts, phone calls, emails, regular in-person meets/activities all work wonders, as does the school's communication system that can be accessed via a browser, or the notices/bulletins my kids bring home on paper that typically cover most of what's communicated via the browser (but I digress).
>It only works in the micro-bubble of HN.
No, it works where it works, and it doesn't where it doesn't. The thing that a lot of people in the comments in these types of threads seem to miss is that this is very obviously a "YMMV" situation, wholly dependent upon what's around you. Sure, fine, use WhatsApp because you need important information from your kid's school(s) if that's literally the only way they communicate - I'm a reasonable individual who won't criticize such a move, because your hands are tied. C'est la vie.
>[1] Let me preempt your likely "but convince all of your family of using <thing> instead...". No. Just no.
There's no pre-empting necessary on your part because I had no intention of it, but, uhh... thanks for the assumption, I guess? You don't have to bother convincing anyone. "Here's how to reach me," one time is all that needs to be done. If they want to reach you, they'll reach you. No extolling of virtues required, and trying to convince someone not to use something is not necessary.
the_af | an hour ago
No, I'm not going to force them to communicate differently with me just out of some sort of principle. WhatsApp works. And I do want to talk to them, it's not an "either way, who cares" deal for me.
And there's no hostility, I was merely pointing out how much HN can be out of touch with reality sometimes. "Nerdy" is only a hostile adjective if you want it to be. Do you?
> What is "the real world"? Is there a standard definition that is applicable to everyone everywhere? I live in "the real world", too, and have no issue conversing with all of my family, parents from my kid's school, and official notifications from school without WhatsApp or social media.
I already explained this in my first comment to which you replied: the only people who see no trouble in replacing all these apps are those who don't use them for anything interesting. Like you. Meanwhile, other people exist in the rest of the world, and it's not so easy...
> The thing that a lot of people in the comments in these types of threads seem to miss [...]
Exactly. We just disagree on what is missed.
> "Here's how to reach me," one time is all that needs to be done. If they want to reach you, they'll reach you.
No, this is not how it works. This is, like I said, a very HN micro-bubble thing to say.
jjulius | an hour ago
Nobody's asking you to force them. :)
>I already explained this in my first comment to which you replied: the only people who see no trouble in replacing all these apps are those who don't use them for anything interesting. Like you. Meanwhile, other people exist in the rest of the world, and it's not so easy...
Yes, your comment said that it "will only work for people who are not really users of WhatsApp or Instagram". My point is that I have plenty of friends and family who regularly use both of those platforms, and they also regularly communicate with me outside of those platforms. It took no haranguing on my part, I just let them know how to say hey if they wanted to.
>No, this is not how it works.
It is! I genuinely think you'd be surprised at how many people would go along with it.
>This is, like I said, a very HN micro-bubble thing to say.
Except that it's not. What is "HN" about walking away from tech? That's a growing trend in our contemporary society. You argue that it's a "very HN" thing to do, yet I'm the only person in my friends and family group that would be considered a "techie", and everyone who I communicate with seems to have had no problem getting in touch with me outside of those tech apps.
the_af | an hour ago
If you're not forcing them, and you want to keep in touch with them, aren't we back where we started? "It's not so easy".
> It took no haranguing on my part, I just let them know how to say hey if they wanted to.
Perfect, it worked for you. It doesn't work for others. Let's say it with me: "it's not so easy".
> It is! I genuinely think you'd be surprised at how many people would go along with it.
It's not! There are many groups out there for which your experience doesn't apply. It's a bubble. And it's a bit presumptuous to assume your interlocutor has no experience trying to change things. At one point, some things are not worth the effort and one has to pick their battles.
> Except that it's not. What is "HN" about walking away from tech?
The HN bubble I refer to is the one where they (we actually, of course I'm not immune) think their microcosm of experiences, very principled and nerd- or tech-focused, and often for specific cultures or nations, applies to the rest of the world. It's typical of some HN'ers to announce to the world that they have LEFT FACEBOOK FOR GOOD and that they aren't missing anything important. Great for them!
It's helpful to always remember: not everyone is like you/me/us, and... wait for it... "it's not that easy".
jjulius | an hour ago
aspectop | 19 hours ago
chistev | 17 hours ago
the_af | 13 hours ago
All of this to say: ads are only in status updates and channels (no idea what this is, never used one) and apparently not in every region.
aspectop | 10 hours ago
qqtt | 19 hours ago
How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers.
By having material subscription revenue coming in for things outside the advertising space, the product managers can justify investing in features that otherwise would be passed up due to lack of revenue potential from advertising.
Yes, in many ways Meta gets to have their cake and eat it too, because the ads are still there even with the plans, but this does give a meaningful voice to their customers who pay that they can invest in other ways outside of strictly advertising.
pertymcpert | 19 hours ago
sunaookami | 9 hours ago
apsurd | 19 hours ago
it being against what your payment contract states just means they’ll reinvent and rename the tiers.
scns | 19 hours ago
Streaming services claiming prior art here.
apsurd | 19 hours ago
I won’t give away the plot, but it’s so realistically absurd it’s sad, hilarious and terrifying all at once.
abound | 16 hours ago
moron4hire | 14 hours ago
kps | 15 hours ago
blitzar | 11 hours ago
vincnetas | 11 hours ago
micromacrofoot | 18 hours ago
zeristor | 16 hours ago
avd201 | 15 hours ago
doctorwho42 | 3 hours ago
komali2 | 14 hours ago
Is there a solution to this?
apsurd | 14 hours ago
it’s imperfect but contrasts this with the modern approach of grow at all costs, light money on fire and punt entirely on how to ever make money. it usually doesn’t end well for customers.
circularfoyers | 13 hours ago
cocoto | 11 hours ago
foxylad | 13 hours ago
The fediverse is a step in the right direction, and Meta charging may create another wave of converts there. It has a lot of growth pains to endure yet, but the ability to painlessly spin up your own instance could be very attractive to young people looking for their own non-corporate spaces on the internet.
We may also see some renewal via large companies (Meta in particular) imploding, from mismanagement and disenchanted users. My experience marketing a new product is that online advertising is completely ineffective now the web is filled with slop, no matter how well targeted it is. We've recently pivoted to optimise for word-of-mouth with orders of magnitude better results. I think any adtech company without a solid alternative profit stream is in for a rough ride (and no, AI is not a solid profit stream for anyone but Nvidia).
windexh8er | 14 hours ago
thayne | 13 hours ago
timoth3y | 19 hours ago
This is not true. You are the product whether you are paying or not.
If the company thinks they can make money by selling your data/attention/access, they will do so. Paying them does not stop them from monetizing you.
These new paid tiers will be slowly enshitified just like most modern paid plans.
anon35 | 18 hours ago
Pretty sure you agree that if the product is free, the company is definitely getting value by monetizing something else of yours. It very much is true as written.
the_af | 17 hours ago
But the context of the parent's and grandparent's comments was (paraphrased) "if you don't pay, you're the product, therefore it makes sense to pay in this case". But given what we know of Meta and their ilk, we have good reason to believe this is absolutely NOT the case: you'll pay but you'll still be the product, and their offerings will keep on the road to enshitification. So parent comment is correct given this context.
I don't believe they were making the case that free Facebook is in any way healthy or good for you.
darth_avocado | 18 hours ago
cm11 | 17 hours ago
Aside: I think it's funny how with an NYT subscription, you still get not only ads, but frequent article-covering ads for NYT subscriptions (asking to upgrade to a family account).
laweijfmvo | 17 hours ago
dymk | 16 hours ago
kalleboo | 5 hours ago
skillina | 17 hours ago
I refuse to install your app just because you intentionally trash the web experience with popups.
slumberlust | 7 hours ago
vineyardmike | 15 hours ago
I’d assume they’re still building that profile while you use the product, but you won’t see any ads, and can still delete the data from the various points like you’ve mentioned.
phyrex | 16 hours ago
sethops1 | 16 hours ago
whyenot | 16 hours ago
the_af | 14 hours ago
Other people are mentioning that in the US there are two tiers of Premium, "Full" and "Lite", but I only see one tier in my country (fully ad-free, allows downloads).
qwerpy | 13 hours ago
prmoustache | 10 hours ago
brianmiddleton | 9 hours ago
But yeah, when Snapchat rolled out their subscription program, I was all set to buy it to get rid of the annoying ads and AI in my chat list, then I realized I could do none of that. So now I just use it a lot less, which is probably better for them anyway.
jmspring | 18 hours ago
ksd482 | 16 hours ago
Of course, they could still sell your data anyway. That's why it's important to pay attention to their T&C.
MajorTakeaway | 2 hours ago
I miss the days where 'the product' is only what we got, and not being the victim of an executives stalking campaign.
pyrale | 2 hours ago
platevoltage | 18 hours ago
h4kunamata | 18 hours ago
Well, now they will keep doing what they are doing while being paid because your data is their business model.
sensanaty | 17 hours ago
Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest and sell your data AND take your money.
WarmWash | 17 hours ago
I'm not sure what win Meta sees here.
HnUser12 | 16 hours ago
okanat | 15 hours ago
brianmiddleton | 9 hours ago
cpt_sobel | 8 hours ago
brianmiddleton | 7 hours ago
tgma | 16 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 15 hours ago
So <$5 per month for someone in the developed world to keep using Instagram and stop being the product. If they redesigned the app around what’s best for users vs advertisers, it actually seems like a great deal, considering many people spend multiple hours per day on apps like these.
Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.
fragmede | 15 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 14 hours ago
komali2 | 14 hours ago
Now I would rather just pay for a couple Patreons. I heard there's some new pay to use YouTube thing out there that creators are pushing, I can't remember the name but I hopped on it and didn't see any extra content beyond what's offered on YouTube so I don't see the point.
Oh and before I got grayjay so I could have ad free casting of videos, premium was nice for when watching on the tv.
blks | 13 hours ago
AlotOfReading | 14 hours ago
jakeydus | 13 hours ago
carlosjobim | 5 hours ago
There's an endless amount of the highest quality videos available on YouTube. But you need to let the algorithm understand what you like by using the conveniently named "Like" and "Dislike" buttons.
tgma | 15 hours ago
ipaddr | 12 hours ago
lolive | 6 hours ago
skeeter2020 | 4 hours ago
cocoto | 11 hours ago
kbar13 | 14 hours ago
all content (even those who make legitimate content, if they intend on making a living on content) is just ads packaged in fancy UGC. we've reached a point of no return for ads and user targeting
sdthjbvuiiijbb | 13 hours ago
As a result the actual amount that they would need to charge for an ad-free version is higher than the average revenue per user, possibly significantly so.
edit: you can look at YouTube premium for an example of this in practice. It's $16/mo for no ads. That's around 2-3x or more what their revenue per user is.
tgma | 13 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 13 hours ago
hvb2 | 12 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 4 hours ago
wahnfrieden | 12 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 4 hours ago
ivell | 11 hours ago
pishpash | 9 hours ago
jjulius | 4 hours ago
You will not stop being the product if you pay.
bigmadshoe | 4 hours ago
jjulius | 4 hours ago
bigmadshoe | 3 hours ago
skeeter2020 | 4 hours ago
This is only true if everyone does it; Why would they stop advertising for a tiny market, especially if they can get both? Why decrease the value of the tracking on a smaller userbase? Sales conversion says you'd have to charge $50 or $500 a month and you'd have a much smaller base; does social media like this even work with a fraction of the people?
bmitc | 15 hours ago
abdullahkhalids | 14 hours ago
I have previously calculated that Mastodon costs including development are on the order of 1 EUR/person/year [1]. Even if you 10x it, it's nothing. Facebook does nothing more technically complicated than the forums of the 90s. It's just smarter design.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38117385
tgma | 11 hours ago
abdullahkhalids | 4 hours ago
wasmitnetzen | 7 hours ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 | 14 hours ago
Google has been doing this for a while with YouTube
The data collection and surveillance will of course be used to support online advertising services. The ads can be delivered outside YouTube by other Alphabet business units or partners
There seems to be a myth that paying so-called "tech" companies solves the problem of data collection, surveillance and online advertising. As if for every subscriber the company will voluntarily collect less data, perform less surveillance and sell less ad services, leaving that money on the table
The truth is that these subscribers, by paying the companies that perform data collection, surveillance and advertising services, are actually subsidising the practice
joquarky | 13 hours ago
bonoboTP | 11 hours ago
MetaWhirledPeas | 9 hours ago
bonoboTP | 8 hours ago
NBJack | 3 hours ago
MarleTangible | 6 hours ago
douglee650 | 3 hours ago
I get that they aren't performing less tracking on me, and they've labeled me as "will pay subscriptions for stuff".
But I get so much out of YouTube that's it's a no-brainer.
ttctciyf | 2 hours ago
fragmede | 2 hours ago
pyrale | 2 hours ago
abenga | an hour ago
PcChip | 2 hours ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2 hours ago
I avoid using Google's Javascript to play other peoples' uploaded videos
I get so much relief out of avoiding the Javascript, telemetry, data collection, behavioural surveillance, "recommendations" and ads, and whatever nonsense Google is doing behind the scenes
It's totally worth it for me
1vuio0pswjnm7 | an hour ago
But no amount of payment will remove the nuisance. The intermediary has made it their "business model"
Remove the middleman to remove the nuisance
thaumasiotes | 9 hours ago
No, qqtt is correct that if you're paying, you get a vote. It may not be all that much of a vote, but it's more than you'd have if you weren't paying, and Meta will pay attention to it.
For a recent example of how this works, consider that with the post-October-7th wave of pro-Palestinian activism on US college campuses, a lot of rich Jews moved to squelch it as best they could -- not by offering new donations conditional on universities adopting their favored political positions, but by threatening to suspend their existing, habitual, "unconditional" donations.
auggierose | 8 hours ago
Lutger | 8 hours ago
If everybody stops using meta apps and starts using signal, bluesky, mastodon, etc., meta would instantly transform their business (if they still can make a profit).
The problem is, subtly harvesting data from and even shoveling ads into paid subscriptions actually doesn't make consumers immediately and massively cancel their subs. So you can make a profit from subscriptions alone, or make an even larger profit by also collecting and monetizing your customers data. Guess who will win?
seanclayton | 6 hours ago
bko | 5 hours ago
Personally I like signaling that I have money. Why would you want people to think you're poor or cheap, except maybe when you're shopping for a car.
akdev1l | 4 hours ago
Personally, I don’t generally think about how other people perceive if I have money or not.
bko | 4 hours ago
skeeter2020 | 4 hours ago
akdev1l | 3 hours ago
I wear my shoes until they break. I wear Vans Sk8 old skool high tops most of the time.
I am also on track to retire by 40 if all goes well. (Which is to say I don’t have THAT much money)
bko | 16 minutes ago
Thanks for proving my point.
HWR_14 | 3 hours ago
But bags as shoes is impractical. You want a sole to protect your feet.
renegade-otter | 4 hours ago
bko | 4 hours ago
What a sad way to live life. Not only because it's untrue (assuming you don't live in North Korea), but it's incredibly dark and destructive.
HWR_14 | 2 hours ago
bko | 19 minutes ago
Are you pretending not to understand?
renegade-otter | an hour ago
bko | 18 minutes ago
TheOtherHobbes | 4 hours ago
But there is clearly a demographic who do use social media to signal lifestyle status, often using that lifestyle status to sell products of various kinds.
The erosion of enthusiast fandom into paid influencer "fandom" is whole subculture.
angled | 16 hours ago
Circa 2016: https://www.techspot.com/news/63504-whatsapp-waves-goodbye-a...
okanat | 15 hours ago
prmoustache | 10 hours ago
sunaookami | 9 hours ago
prmoustache | 7 hours ago
pmontra | 15 hours ago
okanat | 15 hours ago
sometimes_all | 11 hours ago
okanat | 5 hours ago
pks016 | 15 hours ago
bmitc | 15 hours ago
rozap | 15 hours ago
Yokohiii | 15 hours ago
adjejmxbdjdn | 14 hours ago
You’re a Meta decision maker presented with 3 options. Which one do you pick? (remember, you’re not you…you’re a Meta decision maker trying to justify a trillion dollar valuation).
- Possible additional ad revenues
- Possible additional subscription revenues
- Possible additional ad and subscription revenues
rtpg | 13 hours ago
Still plenty of ads in the articles!
xbmcuser | 13 hours ago
choppaface | 12 hours ago
ipaddr | 12 hours ago
DANmode | 9 hours ago
Incorrect.
Credit card networks / issuers explicitly describe using payment, spending, and your personal data,
for marketing, personalization, audience segmentation, and advertising.
Mastercard’s privacy notice states that it may use personal and transaction-related information to: “Provide you with personalized services and recommendations” “Offer and support loyalty programs” “Provide content and advertising tailored to your individual interests” “Analyze spending behavior to improve the effectiveness of marketing programs and advertising.”
Visa has also historically offered an opt-out specifically for using card transaction data…
fodkodrasz | 25 minutes ago
Where can I buy my own data from the brokers?
janalsncm | 11 hours ago
Freak_NL | 10 hours ago
seanclayton | 6 hours ago
gmueckl | 12 hours ago
mrandish | 14 hours ago
If it was a subscription that eliminated all ads AND enshittification anti-patterns, like not putting every single notification, 'share my...' and 'show me...' option on separate toggles helpfully sub-divided into a dozen or more separate pages - I would be all in.
Seriously, what if Meta just said, in effect, "give us $XX a year" and you will be a "VIP Account" that's invisible to all our analytics systems, data collection, aggregation and profiling. The only metric where you will even be visible to our reporting systems is "VIP Account Revenue" as your payments hit our account. We will not care (or even know) if your usage is literally zero minutes a year.
I'm sure all the reasons you're thinking of for why Meta would never do this are probably correct. Those same reasons are why the reasonable-sounding thought "this does give a meaningful voice to their customers who pay" is moot. I believe there is no subscription amount Meta would accept to genuinely shift their entire way of thinking about even a small subset of users. Therefore, this much smaller subscription won't actually change anything that matters. This is just the diary farm trying to collect extra money by renting plastic stall decorations to the cows their business owns and milks. By definition these features will be trivial and purely cosmetic because anything that actually changes user behavior, would impact the real business and will be decided based on that.
blks | 12 hours ago
I wonder if fully forbidding personalised ads will actually make gdp of developed nations to shrink.
wahnfrieden | 12 hours ago
nxpnsv | 12 hours ago
frail_figure | 12 hours ago
tw04 | 12 hours ago
CTDOCodebases | 12 hours ago
The problem is now people are conditioned to having their privacy violated so they are still the product and they will pay to be the product.
The network effects with a product like WhatsApp are strong so that this opens the door to dark patterns for the non paying customers. After enough time the same level of effort will go into the now subscription app that went into it when it was free.
YouTube is a good example of this phenomenon.
emayljames | 11 hours ago
CTDOCodebases | 8 hours ago
csomar | 11 hours ago
nelox | 11 hours ago
lelanthran | 11 hours ago
Maybe. Or maybe this is the final stop on the route to enshittification: bill both the advertisers and the users.
chias | 10 hours ago
> The thing that determines whether you’re the product isn’t whether you’re paying for the product: it’s whether market power and regulatory forbearance allow the company to get away with selling you.
Or more simply:
> Companies don’t make you the product because you don’t pay — they make you the product because you can’t stop them.
As far as feature development goes, Meta isn't looking under the couch cushions for change. If they want to invest in a feature, they will.
godelski | 10 hours ago
To me it sounds like they no longer are making enough money, so now they are asking people to pay to be the product
pyrale | 2 hours ago
Have they ever made enough money according to their own desire?
latexr | 10 hours ago
As of late, not many times. Because it’s become clear that for the big players you’re the product even if you pay. See for example Netflix or Hulu, where you pay a subscription and are advertised to.
palata | 9 hours ago
This is old school. Now we know for a fact from the "enshittification" concept that you are always the product. If they can keep abusing you AND make you pay on top of that, it's better than abusing you without making you pay.
There are no good monopolies, the solution really is to fight them.
haritha-j | 8 hours ago
qwertox | 7 hours ago
I feel like this is no longer true. You are now the product regardless of you paying for it or not.
vasco | 6 hours ago
1. Get cable TV there's no ads!
2. Everyone switches to cable
3. Cable now has ads too
Than what you describe but I feel like it's maybe more positive of a change than that. But just slightly.
vel0city | 4 hours ago
Several of the first cable-only TV channels were ad supported from the start, and several others started including ads within a few years in.
PatronBernard | 6 hours ago
general_reveal | 6 hours ago
chris_wot | 5 hours ago
It’s Facebook. Why would anyone trust them?
renegade-otter | 4 hours ago
skeeter2020 | 4 hours ago
Like no ads? that's usually the #1 you pay for and no mention of that.
otikik | 3 hours ago
I used to think like that, but then I realized that
> if you are paying for the product, nothing guarantees that you are not the product anyway
Companies like money and they will have no qualms against double dipping. Even if you refuse to be their customer (and thus they lose the revenue coming from you) as long as the majority of their customers are ok with being a product, they will keep doing it.
voxleone | 3 hours ago
plagiarist | 3 hours ago
everdrive | 3 hours ago
Danox | an hour ago
torben-friis | 19 hours ago
Meta? Fuck off. We all know they're already doing awful stuff with our data, they've had more bugs last year than all of whatsapps previous history combined, and whatever price they request now is step one for enshittification.
sometimelurker | 19 hours ago
Painsawman123 | 19 hours ago
chistev | 17 hours ago
brcmthrowaway | 18 hours ago
righthand | 19 hours ago
And just to say it is actually sad there is no alternative because most of those artists dont really gain a valuable network effect from posting there. But it is how younger unestablished peoples establish themselves as existing. There are entire comedy/music scenes that essentially require you to have an Instagram account.
ethanpil | 18 hours ago
embedding-shape | 18 hours ago
angled | 16 hours ago
alex1138 | 15 hours ago
Anything Zuckerberg needs antitrust immediately
mjamesaustin | 10 hours ago
qingcharles | 18 hours ago
danpalmer | 17 hours ago
...but it's unclear what this subscription would give me. The announcement has no real details, the article is light on detail, and the WhatsApp website has no mention of this subscription.
I get that it's hard. What I want is a good text and call app, and that's hard to charge for at scale. But every feature that Meta has added to justify charging (AI, stories, profiles, etc), makes the product worse for me and makes me less likely to pay for it.
They're in a hard place.
kwanbix | 17 hours ago
ablation | 7 hours ago
chistev | 17 hours ago
They have a stranglehold on everything. It's inescapable.
skybrian | 13 hours ago
tgrowazay | 17 hours ago
boredatoms | 17 hours ago
bastawhiz | 16 hours ago
Cider9986 | 15 hours ago
odo1242 | 16 hours ago
notsydonia | 14 hours ago
But speaking as someone who deleted a high following FB page that I probably shouldn't have because the back end of it was so infuriating, I don't understand this offering. It seems like a lot of bling and clutter. Most people who need to use Meta for biz reasons want the same thing - live support that is not a bot or a human that may as well be a bot.
And not to get too granular but if you've used IG lately, for example, you notice that trying to do anything on the back end (eg: set up up some boosted posts or schedule things) takes the user through a maze and sometimes you end up in the old legacy Facebook pages, which has links that don't relate to any of the contemporary features. It sounds minor but it essentially barely functions and each click to confirm something sends you to another section to confirm something else. You also need a FB page to do anything on an IG page and a tonne of other petty thwartings. The fact that their brand new subscriptions/Meta platform seems just as confusing is alarming. I don't know how a company with this much money can not design an un-hellish back end or offer reasonable customer support.
Their A.I. monitoring is also completely off the chain, closing accounts and locking profiles for opaque reasons that cannot be questioned.
NamlchakKhandro | 12 hours ago
zemo | 14 hours ago
abixb | 13 hours ago
arrty88 | 14 hours ago
compounding_it | 13 hours ago
Social media is here to stay, unfortunately. Meta, LinkedIn, X, I wouldn't invest in the long term.
yalogin | 13 hours ago
compounding_it | 13 hours ago
If you are paying for the usage (mostly server and development costs), your data need not be used for anything other than actually improving the product and security.
Currently the data is purely to extract profits and keep you hooked. This is what they have made you believe social media is about. Its not. You aren't hooked on iMessage and FaceTime scrolling reels and wasting hours. It's actually used to connect with people.
whiplash451 | 12 hours ago
And a lot of this is probably spent maintaining the ad machine
Sol- | 11 hours ago
przm | 12 hours ago
herf | 12 hours ago
unnouinceput | 12 hours ago
derencius | 11 hours ago
If this new sub becomes a status signaling, it might work.
brianmiddleton | 9 hours ago
HeartStrings | 11 hours ago
rhubarbtree | 10 hours ago
submeta | 10 hours ago
But actually this is a good move. I tried to convince my family and friends to use alternatives, without success. But now I see hope.
Have stopped using FB and IG years ago, was stuck with WhatsApp because of half the world using it.
wg0 | 10 hours ago
Now we need something new to show to the shareholders and that is this.
karel-3d | 9 hours ago
rupatiwari25 | 9 hours ago
nicce | 9 hours ago
rupatiwari25 | 9 hours ago
lou1306 | 4 hours ago
dabedee | 9 hours ago
I personally abhore Facebook (and IG,Whatsapp) and don't want to use any of them; I have uninstalled/reinstalled Whatsapp many times. Out of practical concern, I now only use Whatsapp in business settings where it would create tension and create social awkwardness not to. But I dislike the fact that I do.
dgellow | 9 hours ago
thejackgoode | 8 hours ago
yurishimo | 8 hours ago
dgellow | 8 hours ago
k4rli | 8 hours ago
Traubenfuchs | 8 hours ago
panja | 6 hours ago
You could use it for other things lol. My entire boring friend group uses it for none of those.
scott01 | 6 hours ago
dgellow | 4 hours ago
Doing illegal stuff in public Telegram channels is extremely stupid, they aren't encrypted, you're pretty much giving your information to law enforcement (I know Telegram is often blocking sharing info on their users to law enforcement, but you can be sure agencies are monitoring your telegram channel discussions).
The Russophile comment is pretty frustrating given Telegram is the most commonly used messenger in Ukraine and lots of Eastern Europe...
venzaspa | 4 hours ago
There's truth to the Russophile comment though, Telegram is regularly used by GRU and the FSB to recruit people to commit acts of vandalism and terror and is pretty well documented. It's also commonly used to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. My mum has fallen for several of these via Telegram.
dgellow | 54 minutes ago
Telegram has a larger Russian speaking audience because of the founder, who created VK in Russia. But that doesn’t make it Russophile. Ukraine is organizing pretty much all their resistance on Telegram…
The public channels are where the trash content is, I’ve never used them myself, you have to explicitly look for that feature, it’s not like they are shown in the chat interface directly.
> Why not settle on a chat which actually uses e2e encryption by default though?
Because I care more about the quality of user experience, and Telegram has been awesome to use since I first tried it
abcd_f | 3 hours ago
TrackerFF | 8 hours ago
I'm in Scandinavia, and at least here, Messenger is by far the most dominant messaging app.
Meta in general has a really tight grip here.
bondarchuk | 3 hours ago
jraby3 | 8 hours ago
rcMgD2BwE72F | 4 hours ago
rcMgD2BwE72F | 4 hours ago
We like having two apps: WA for friends, Signal for family. There are only few reasons to mix the two.
timbaboon | 4 hours ago
On the other hand, I've convinced a lot of my friends to get Signal. I'm the only person that they speak to on Signal, but that's fine ;)
pbiggar | 4 hours ago
The main advice we got is that although you need to migrate individuals, the main focus should be on migrating channels. If you have a family group chat, that's the target. Tell people about how Meta spies on them, etc, and then support everyone in the channel to individually set up Signal if necessary.
jwr | 2 hours ago
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, realizes that using Whatsapp by default (which everyone accepts) synchronizes their entire contacts list to Meta. It's a golden trove of valuable data for an ad targeting company.
People don't realize that there is so much that can be inferred about you from your contacts. Whether you have kids, which schools they go to, and similar personal information.
All of this is not even on the radar and people reduce privacy to "whether someone listens in on my calls or conversations" and tend to brush it off, because they honestly don't care about that part.
Signal doesn't make it easier by refusing to allow encrypted iCloud backups for so many years (which means people lose data when they lose their phones!) and recently introducing a subscription backup service instead of allowing me to do an encrypted iCloud backup. It's hard to explain to people that they should use an inferior product just because of "privacy".
pndy | 13 minutes ago
The recent yet another revival of Gadu Gadu pass by without much fanfare. For those unfamiliar: GG was created by single guy upon ICQ idea of UIN's and quickly become the default messenger in Poland some 20 years ago - even gov't used it at some point. But it lost its position to Skype, Whatsapp and Viber. I admire somewhat the dedication this new company has in restoring our "homemade" network. But it's way too late: new generation of people who's mainly familiar with big corporations services have grown up and GG has nothing that'd made it replace these.
a1371 | 9 hours ago
If only Google Plus lived long enough to see this day...
zimpenfish | 9 hours ago
But if you take away even read-only API access to services[0], I'm a) not going to pay and b) going to stop using your services.
[0] I really don't feel like converting my Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp accounts to the "business" variants just to get access to the APIs.
donbreo | 8 hours ago
lblock | 7 hours ago
maxehmookau | 7 hours ago
m000 | 7 hours ago
It went a bit like this:
- EU mandates that users should be given the option to opt out from non-essential cookies.
- Meta responds by implementing an ad-free subscription-based model in EU, which allows them to dodge regulation.
- EU of course sees through their scheme and prepares to sanction them.
- Meta rolls-out subscriptions worldwide, so that it becomes harder for EU to claim that subscriptions were specifically created for dodging EU regulation.
egorfine | 7 hours ago
Problem is, facebook WILL raise the prices on these subscriptions every few months until they could not anymore. So I will have to pay probably like $12.99/m in a couple of years.
fsflover | 6 hours ago
Time to suggest them to join Mastodon and Pixelfed? Relying on a foreign, for-profit megacorp is a bad way to keep contact with friends.
egorfine | 6 hours ago
Sure. Guess how many of them will actually do it?
> Relying on a foreign, for-profit megacorp is a bad way to keep contact with friends.
I'd say it's exactly the opposite: relying on a foreign, for-profit megacorp is currently the best way to keep contact with friends.
Unfortunately.
LtWorf | 5 hours ago
That's how much they value your friendship then :)
jjulius | 4 hours ago
I've ditched those forms of social media, and haven't really had trouble keeping in touch with most people I'd like to keep in touch with, whether it's emails, calls, texts or regular meets/activities in meatspace. The people in your life who truly care about you will make a genuine effort to remain in touch with you.
If people don't want to make that effort, why do I need to be connected to what they're doing every day?
ilivethere | 4 hours ago
Between SMS, messenger, instagram, whatsapp, discord, slack, ms teams, signal, there's a point where juggling too much messaging apps become a burden instead of convenience.
joenot443 | 5 hours ago
I think insisting on using weird products nobody in the real world knows about is a “bad way to keep contact with friends”
fsflover | 3 hours ago
abcd_f | 5 hours ago
mimischi | 5 hours ago
meszmate | 5 hours ago
b3lvedere | 5 hours ago
True, a lot of other people i know, including family and corpo, use Whatsapp. I will not pay to stay in contact with them. They can go back to sms or email if they want to. Or pay for me.
rickcarlino | 4 hours ago
baggachipz | 4 hours ago
skeeter2020 | 4 hours ago
zamadatix | 3 hours ago
Of course, the trick is you don't actually get "everyone". You get the users with more money, who are more valuable ad targets. Still, $39.99/m seems like it'd be pretty high.
hmokiguess | 4 hours ago
lenerdenator | 4 hours ago
Fire Mark Zuckerberg into the stratosphere and I'll will you my worldly possessions.
annagio_ | 4 hours ago
phplovesong | 3 hours ago
phplovesong | 3 hours ago
90% was these weird pages having very sexual teasing shorts, or bikini girls / latex pants etc. None of the pages were something is had ever seen before, or even followed.
The rest 9% was AI gen low qulity shorts, and the remaining 1% was actually from someone i did was friends with, but even thise seemes like some tool had generated them, as in "follow my new business page" etc.
The facebook that once was seem to be totally gone by now, and im not even sure what it is anymore.
I never got an instgram account, but i guess its the same low quality shit over there.
specproc | 3 hours ago
"Hi there, I am no longer using WhatsApp. To contact me, please..."
nkotov | 3 hours ago
kigiri | 3 hours ago
Subscribe on Facebook.com or Instagram.com: €5.99 per month for one account, plus €4 per month (or price in applicable local currency) for each additional account in the same Accounts Center
akulbe | 2 hours ago
sim04ful | 2 hours ago
hbn | an hour ago