You want privacy on Facebook? Don't use Faccebook. That is what I do. Or, should it be "I don't"?
10
What makes you think paying would work? i pay the Times every month and i still get bombarded with obnoxious ads on the site.
35
Or just stay off Facebook and keep your data, money and time to yourself. What a concept.
8
I left Facebook many months ago when it first started the pay-to-promote policy. I knew it was the beginning of the end of a useful social networking site. From what I've heard, it's gotten much worse. I'd go back to Facebook if it followed Zeynep Tufekci's advice and I was able to see my friends' updates frequently again. But I'm not holding my breath, and will never go back as long as there is any kind of pay-to-promote policy.
4
If FB and the world thought the value of a customer is .20 cents per month the stock would be a fraction of the price. They have a lot more in the works hence the valuation. An example for why they need their ads is the hope that they can figure out how to make retail sales (like Amazon or Macy's) on FB itself--bring on even more profits then they already make. To stop where they are now will hurt them and future technology trends.
4
You can create a social network without ads. Just saying, remember that we built the Internet.
2
It won't help with the tracking, but a good ad blocker keeps the ads at bay. It's worth the minimal cost to be able to browse without someone trying to sell you something every second of every minute you're online.
1
Mr. Zuckerberg seems to be rather encased in a bubble. Will this insight ever reach him? If not, Perhaps Ethan Zuckerman, a good man who I have happened to meet at Harvard's Berkman Center, might choose tosepnd some time developing this new platform? I would happily beta test it. Ethan, are you perhaps listening?
2
I can't help pointing out the - is it irony -? I pay a subscription fee to the New York Times to access its content and I'm inundated with ads. I can't get to the content I want without watching ads for things I'm not interested in. Last night I linked to a story I wanted to read and sat through an ad - muted - and was taken to a different story than the one I wanted. When I found the story and linked to it - I had to sit through a different ad. I've paid subscription fees to other sites to avoid ads - I remember when you could read "The Times" online for free. Now I pay a monthly subscription fee and get swamped with advertising also - that's not right.
26
There are ads on Facebook? Who even notices them, much less looks at them?
5
Well, I pay for my NYT subscription and it hasn't eliminated advertising for me.
The pages are littered with ads, commercials autoplay and cause pages to load more slowly. And I'm pretty sure info is collected by advertisers.
What was your point again?
Paying for content will eliminate ads?
Yeah, right.
The pages are littered with ads, commercials autoplay and cause pages to load more slowly. And I'm pretty sure info is collected by advertisers.
What was your point again?
Paying for content will eliminate ads?
Yeah, right.
19
Facebook and its ilk are useless and nonsensical. My friends are real people that I can have a beer with or invite to my house for dinner. Have we become so insecure as a society that we need Facebook silliness and drama complete with intrusive advertising?
9
You still get what you pay for on the internet.
1
Do we imagine that this thought hasn't crossed the mind of anyone at Facebook? There's an obvious reason why they can't charge users: the only people who would pay are people with plenty of money. The remaining people - poor people - would be completely worthless to advertisers, who really only want to advertise to people who have money. That's why you can't pay to get the Times without advertising, either. So you'd think the Times would know that.
6
I'd be okay with micropayments, or even a small monthly fee on certain sites, but not FB. And you can forget about Zuckerberg embracing this idea. FB doesn't really do that much for us and due to the lack of ingenuity at FB, don't count on that changing. Sure, people don't seem to mind, but they should. There is so much more FB could offer to enrich our capabilities within the FB social network, but FB is too busy trying to figure out how to make more money on us, with ads, or by selling us something - to please Wall Street. And one quarter of the people won't pay anyway, because FB really isn't that valuable to 99% of the users. Let's review how FB empowers us: we can upload pics and share them and we can say stupid stuff for our friends to read. Some of us then get fired from our jobs. So, what is the big sensation about FB? Most of what I read is complete nonsense, gibberish, useless fodder for blank minds. We're stuck with the ads, just like on this NY Times site - EVEN when you subscribe for $15 a month!! Been there. Done that. Cancelled my subscription.
4
I agree with the writer about the advertising model not working effectively, at least from the consumer point of view.
but she is way off base when she writes, Facebook isn't doing well because it only makes 20 cents profit per user per month. That is an absolutely outstanding rate of return
but she is way off base when she writes, Facebook isn't doing well because it only makes 20 cents profit per user per month. That is an absolutely outstanding rate of return
It's obvious that the ad industry, not users, are the customers of facebook, and users pay by giving up privacy AND by wasting time navigating the maze of security options (which fb changes frequently to benefit their real customers) to optimize fb experience and minimize potential security issues. Is that time included in the 20 hrs/week? Those of us who use fb mostly to view updates and see pics of relatives and close friends are already on the verge of dropping it altogether, and many are a little too savvy to fall for a gimmick like paying for access. We're not the customer, remember?
3
OMG, targeted advertising! Oh, the horror of seeing primarily ads related to things I might actually be interested in! Terrible, just terrible. Especially together with that little man Facebook keeps in my house with a gun pointed at my head to force me to buy the advertised products.
4
Want to know the value of "social media"?
Simple - let's have Facebook double their profit by user by billing each person 20 cents per month.
I'm very sure that will quickly thin the herd of who needs this diversion from life.
Simple - let's have Facebook double their profit by user by billing each person 20 cents per month.
I'm very sure that will quickly thin the herd of who needs this diversion from life.
1
The irony of this op-ed is: Wouldn't the author want all of us to share her piece on Facebook, Twitter, etc? If social media cost money, they would lose users. Without the number of users they have, there are less eyeballs on pieces such as this. Ads or no ads, we live in a world where journalists need social media and its reach.
1
Ads are one thing, incessant spam of half naked girls is the most annoying thing about Instagram. As if a naked girl in the age of porn with the press of a button, is somehow thrilling. Maybe it is to guys in the middle of nowhere, but in NYC it's a great obstacle to posting and sharing work related craft, art and creative interests with fellow artists. I'd gladly even pay a small fee to be on Instagram, but please get rid of the spam! That's what will drive users away. No worthy app or business venture should be racing to the bottom to fill coffers. Smart, creative people should be everyone's target user. A bit of balance between generating greater profits and making Instagram a fantastic creative experience should be the goal of Mr. Zuckerberg.
2
I think that this article misses the point. You can already connect with other for free (minus your interest service cost), you just not on FB. FB isn't the only game in town. If you want to pay $5.99/month you could have your own hosted webpage that you could regulate any way you want. There are also other social networks that are private that. don't feed you data. If you chose to interact with your real friends this way they would probably respond and join you. If you want access to hundreds, if not thousands, of friendly acquaintances that you probably only see rarely is real life, than maybe FB is for you. But you are far having to use their service to connect.
1
I actually think it's quite amazing so much is provided to the consumer in trade for some personal information and targeted ads. Yes privacy is important and it's somewhat impressive to see targeted ads after I just did a search for similar products.
That is a far cry from saying it is costing me too much. I don't see the average user complaining about ads or marketing in their online play. They take it just as they did with TV - ignoring it.
Actually there is a lot of good to come from these services. Not only do they allow us to keep tabs on friends and family all over the world, in real time but they also put ads for products we may be looking for at the touch of our fingertips. Scrolling/ignoring is a lot less intrusive online than waiting through five minutes of blaring, yelling, non-interactive and flashy ads (as the TV model forces us.)
My guess is it will take a lot more than a few ads in our free Instagram feed to get us to want to pay for a service we never would have signed up for otherwise.
That is a far cry from saying it is costing me too much. I don't see the average user complaining about ads or marketing in their online play. They take it just as they did with TV - ignoring it.
Actually there is a lot of good to come from these services. Not only do they allow us to keep tabs on friends and family all over the world, in real time but they also put ads for products we may be looking for at the touch of our fingertips. Scrolling/ignoring is a lot less intrusive online than waiting through five minutes of blaring, yelling, non-interactive and flashy ads (as the TV model forces us.)
My guess is it will take a lot more than a few ads in our free Instagram feed to get us to want to pay for a service we never would have signed up for otherwise.
The flaw in this is even if users paid subscription fees the tracking would continue. Data is currency, users are inventory and it's naive to think such self serving entities as Facebook or Google are going to give up on that particular golden goose just because people are willing to pay for their alleged privacy. You are assuming that these are companies that abide by some code of ethics. I think we are all aware that that is not the case.
8
We desperately need a federal law on digital privacy. Right now, our data is being taken from us - yes, taken - without our consent, other than a few boilerplate lines in those nonsensical legal "agreements" that we sign when we sign up for online services. There needs to be a law stating that we must opt in to having our data used, and that we may not be discriminated against in any way if we opt out. Perhaps the most egregious example of our data being taken is our medical data. If your doctor uses some of the "free" electronic medical record software programs, then those have been established solely with the goal of getting patient data for free - and the doctor is responsible for the use of that data, even though the doctor and the doc's office manager have no control over how the data is being sold. One of these free EHR company's made close to $1 billion last year in data sales - and the patients do not even know their data was sold. I recently read an article on this where a medical data analyst said that patients have consented to having their data sold by not caring or asking about it - hey, wait a minute, we are the guardians of our health, and now we are also supposed to guard our data ourselves?
1
I find it interesting that "elite" people rarely have personal Facebook pages. I'm speaking of the CEOs of companies, highly positioned lawyers and doctors, certain artists, etc., who keep their privacy by opting out of social media. Perhaps they also don't have the time to wade through all those ads. Facebook is for hoi polloi and the advertisers who want to capture their middle- or lower-income dollars. Here, as elsewhere, our society is bifurcated, with privacy becoming a privilege of the rich and its lack a problem of the rest. All the more reason why we need new for-pay services like this editorial proposes: for a dollar a month, privacy would be affordable to the masses.
4
I very much doubt that many people will pay for Facebook. Look at Public Television. They provide a fantastic service and a vastly superior product to commercial TV and yet they have great difficulty getting people to contribute to the service. Facebook, by contrast is a huge waste of time.
Besides who is going to allow their credit cards to be debited for 20cents a month.
Besides who is going to allow their credit cards to be debited for 20cents a month.
2
There is a simple and prevalent model of how this could work. There are many apps that offer premium versions that are add-free. People who use those particular apps a lot pay the premium, or don't mind the adds. That could clearly work with the FB app, and if working there could transfer to the website. We would want something that would combine lack of ads with real privacy.
It isn't offered because FB is putting all its eggs in the ad-driven revenue model, and when that is what you are selling, it is harder to sell the ads if users can opt out. But the two-pronged model is viable if any site or app wants to pursue it, and it would make sense for FB to hedge its bets in this manner.
It isn't offered because FB is putting all its eggs in the ad-driven revenue model, and when that is what you are selling, it is harder to sell the ads if users can opt out. But the two-pronged model is viable if any site or app wants to pursue it, and it would make sense for FB to hedge its bets in this manner.
4
I will have a much greater respect for Facebook if it takes this course. The road they took was the easy one, the obvious one, and it was the low road.
The low road doesn't just affect the users of existing sites, it also prevents anyone else from competing on the high road. The low road doesn't just erode the quality of online interaction, it also erodes accurate perceptions of the world.
It erodes democracy.
The low road doesn't just affect the users of existing sites, it also prevents anyone else from competing on the high road. The low road doesn't just erode the quality of online interaction, it also erodes accurate perceptions of the world.
It erodes democracy.
2
I don't mind being tracked as a price for free access. It is easy for me to delete ads to my email and worth what I receive in return. If Facebook does charge for more privacy I hope I can opt out of payment and choose giving up my information instead.
4
The internet is not free, just ask Cisco Systems, Juniper Networks, 3Com or Avici. Privacy is not a right but a privilege in a public space like the Internet. You can gain that privilege, but it will cost you a lot work and more than 20 cents a month. The Silk Road owner was hidden for many, many years. Personally I prefer to have ads that address things I am interested in and not pushup bras, Tiny Tot plastic castles, million dollar condos in Bora Bora. I am a 70 year old guy with limited assets but I might be interested in a good price on tires. We are all individuals with individual interests and needs, being recognized as such is not a bad thing. Let us not forget that the "right to privacy of medical information" is costing every citizen of this country well over a thousand dollars of hidden fees every year.
12
Professor Tufekci is naïve in her simplified economic analysis. Facebook and Google are not selling her as an individual. They are selling exposure to massive groups of aggregating people with a likelihood to click/purchase/download. The companies who are advertising are writing large checks, over an extended period of time to generate impressions and perhaps after 20 exposures are able to convert one in 100 viewers to leads or purchasers. For this large companies generate revenue and spend billions of dollars across television, digital and other media. In aggregate, they sell their products and keep the global economy going as consumer move online. This is called advertising and has been a part of media since Roman times and before. Just like any media, if the professor doesn't like the programming, change the channel, get a blackphone, unplug her internet connection, unsubscribe to the NY Times. Technology and media posting on nyt.com on her blog, Twitter and Facebook page won't solve her aversion to targeted advertising. Exiting from technology and media will.
12
Dr. Tufekci,
Users of social media, TV viewers, highway billboard passerbys, and window shoppers surveiled by storefront cameras, etc. created a great deal of valuable but uncompensated information. This information is useful to product and service related industries who are willing to pay for the data to those companies who collect it and put it in useful form. Unfortunately, the users of social media, etc. do not receive payment while their private information may be costly to them, eventually. It is a competitive world and some of the information about you, sometimes modified and taken out of context, can be used to place the user in an embarrassing and/or negative context that will do harm to the user's reputation and probably benefit the user's competition.
Bottom line: One should not pay or agree to provide financial or personal information unless absolutely necessary . The internet is NOT secure and cannot provide privacy or copyright protection.
Well written article, but we still don't know enough about the societal impact of the new social media and there appears to be insufficient consumer protection.
Users of social media, TV viewers, highway billboard passerbys, and window shoppers surveiled by storefront cameras, etc. created a great deal of valuable but uncompensated information. This information is useful to product and service related industries who are willing to pay for the data to those companies who collect it and put it in useful form. Unfortunately, the users of social media, etc. do not receive payment while their private information may be costly to them, eventually. It is a competitive world and some of the information about you, sometimes modified and taken out of context, can be used to place the user in an embarrassing and/or negative context that will do harm to the user's reputation and probably benefit the user's competition.
Bottom line: One should not pay or agree to provide financial or personal information unless absolutely necessary . The internet is NOT secure and cannot provide privacy or copyright protection.
Well written article, but we still don't know enough about the societal impact of the new social media and there appears to be insufficient consumer protection.
3
This article was written with pretty much 0 knowledge of the ad tech industry. Facebook/google tracking methods are pitiful compared to bluekai and others. If you really want to protect yourself, you should only pay for things with cash. Every time you make a purchase with a credit card that information can be sold or captured directly by a brand and/or by an aggregator. Furthermore, consumers have NO IDEA what it costs to maintain the technologies that they use. And no they do not want to pay for it. Additionally, ads that are targeted receive better ratings from consumers. Lastly, if the general public knew how much information the ad tech industry had on them they would not worry about the NSA.
1
I like the idea of paying for the service Facebook and other social media provide as that is the value I seek, not being constantly tugged into various directions by ads that mean nothing to me.
It seems that every site now is constantly popping up a window prompting me to sign up or register as I attempt to find any relevant content stuffed in amongst columns of ads implemented in widely varying quality of javascript code. It doesn't seem to matter how small or large the concern is nor apparently what value the purveyors of these sites think having an account with them will provide me. I have to guess that harassing site visitors with registration windows is a concept set in stone in Marketing 101 these days. Personally, that is a *sure* way to discourage me immediately towards taking any such action, in fact it makes for a distinct disincentive to do anything of the sort. I'm not excited about the idea that there will be yet more email to opt-out of, yet another set of credentials I have to memorize or jot down, and all for some site I just stumbled upon from a single search result that I'm likely to never use again.
In short, if there's really something a site provides that they think I would value, just place an obvious means of getting it; stop throwing in my face on every visit or renewal of a site cookie.
It seems that every site now is constantly popping up a window prompting me to sign up or register as I attempt to find any relevant content stuffed in amongst columns of ads implemented in widely varying quality of javascript code. It doesn't seem to matter how small or large the concern is nor apparently what value the purveyors of these sites think having an account with them will provide me. I have to guess that harassing site visitors with registration windows is a concept set in stone in Marketing 101 these days. Personally, that is a *sure* way to discourage me immediately towards taking any such action, in fact it makes for a distinct disincentive to do anything of the sort. I'm not excited about the idea that there will be yet more email to opt-out of, yet another set of credentials I have to memorize or jot down, and all for some site I just stumbled upon from a single search result that I'm likely to never use again.
In short, if there's really something a site provides that they think I would value, just place an obvious means of getting it; stop throwing in my face on every visit or renewal of a site cookie.
Why are you "relying" on Facebook?! Facebook is over. Jumped the shark back in 2009. I haven't logged onto Facebook in years and years. Are you 65 years old or something?
3
The idea that Mark Zuckerberg would charge only $1 per month for a subscription to Facebook is incredibly naive.
2
This is all a prime of example of the pitfalls and dangers of 'too much technology'. We've made our beds, now let's all collectively sleep in them
1
Is it too much technology or too much business, too much competition for our attention so that something can be sold to us. Snake oil remains snake oil and pitchmen remain pitchmen. But it used to be easier to escape them.
These types of articles about social media in the NYT always attract the "you kids get off my lawn" type of comments. You know: "what's Facebook?" "only stupid Millennials tweet" or some variation of "Back in MY DAY….. and we LIKED IT!!!"
I see the trend is continuing here.
#GetOffMyLawn
I see the trend is continuing here.
#GetOffMyLawn
2
The day you you were born, the day your parents enrolled you in school, when you opened your first bank account, applied for your first credit card, applied for college, got your first e-mail address you started making the minutiae of your life an open book to governments at all level, banks, credit rating agencies and, after the creation of the WWW, anyone with a user account and a search engine. Then came the rediculously mis-named "social media" and you willingly and happily started living a virtual life full of selfies and plainly posting everything you did good, bad, or indifferent for the world to see and be dazzled by and envious of the exciting and full life you live. And now you complain because the people who provided -- for free -- the canvas you paint on actually use the data you supply to make money.
Think about the following: 1. There's no such thing as a free lunch. 2. Everything you commit to the web lives FOREVER and can be found by anyone. And, a corrollary to #2, 3. If you die in the Matrix, you are dead in the real world. (Everything you do, say post online, has implications in your real life.)
Think about the following: 1. There's no such thing as a free lunch. 2. Everything you commit to the web lives FOREVER and can be found by anyone. And, a corrollary to #2, 3. If you die in the Matrix, you are dead in the real world. (Everything you do, say post online, has implications in your real life.)
8
As someone who both works for one of those frustrated non-profits and someone who gladly pays small monthly fees for ad-free experiences, I am all for this. Facebook and the like should look to the various music platforms -- Spotify, Last.fm, Mixcloud, etc.-- that have successfully integrated a tiered membership system in which one can elect to pay for an ad-free experience.
14
It has been said that if you get something free on the Internet then YOU are the product.
4
Ms. Tufekci, I wouldn't worry about these various Internet services eventually charging customers. I'm certain it's in their business plans. Their time will come. You are probably too young to remember, but there was a long period in America when television was free, except for the cost of a set and an antenna.
It took decades, but today, many of us are forced to pay up to $200 a month or more for our TV programming. A lot of us are going to be shocked at the costs when we are finally forced to pay for all of these "free" services across the Web. It's not going to be pretty.
It took decades, but today, many of us are forced to pay up to $200 a month or more for our TV programming. A lot of us are going to be shocked at the costs when we are finally forced to pay for all of these "free" services across the Web. It's not going to be pretty.
2
It doesn't auger well when the first metric you use is the public opinion. You can make the polled respond anyway you like, as everyone knows. 1/3 of Americans can't tell you what country Paris is in.
1
Remind me why we "rely" on these sites?? I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. I know there's a whole generation or two that disagrees but it's still a choice. And there are enough stories out there now ("his boss saw his drunken rant online and fired him..." "she found out he was cheating on his FB page...") that people are warned. If they still choose to engage, oh well.
2
Zucherburg is now calling his users a subsidsy. Classic neo con talk. His profuct charges people to see what they wrote, thats how he makes money. The sad thing is he promised his users to make money also thus creating this tech bubble. This product is garbage, I stopped buying a computer because of it. Tech people are biref invent things to sell stock, cin artists
2
That social media is a critical component of human well-being is a myth Zuckerberg is eager to perpetuate.
I've never used Facebook once, and I'm happier than a clam.
I've never used Facebook once, and I'm happier than a clam.
4
I bought a lamp online and my FB feed, weeks later, is still crammed with ads for... lamps. These companies are wasting their money trying, desperately, to get me to buy the lamp I already bought.
Yes, there is a bubble.
Yes, there is a bubble.
1
The real issue here is that we just have not yet figured out a good way to generate revenue for digital services. Ads don't do it, and our current pricing models are inadequate for a product that consumers know can be replicated at almost no cost. Our traditional economics of value exchange just don't work.
But extensive research with fringe models shows that consumers will pay for digital services under conditions they think fair. The trick is to empower consumers to pay a price that is fair--for how each individual uses a given service (which varies widely). We can draw on that to devise a whole new strategy that creates a new kind of invisible hand (more of a handshake), that just works, with no need for hand-wringing about the evils of charging or of selling ads.
In the Harvard Business Review Blog, I have proposed a new model called FairPay. FairPay re-envisions elements of freemium, paywalls, dynamic pricing, value/performance-based pricing, pay what you want, subscriptions, and loyalty programs, to provide a strong and sustainable customer revenue stream. FairPay offers a new kind of architecture for approximating an optimal price that is personal and context-dependent, by building a deep relationship that is based on dialogs about value. This solves the nasty problems of pricing digital products and other experience goods in a way that assures customer buy-in. This is explained at http://www.fairpayzone.com/p/overview.html.
But extensive research with fringe models shows that consumers will pay for digital services under conditions they think fair. The trick is to empower consumers to pay a price that is fair--for how each individual uses a given service (which varies widely). We can draw on that to devise a whole new strategy that creates a new kind of invisible hand (more of a handshake), that just works, with no need for hand-wringing about the evils of charging or of selling ads.
In the Harvard Business Review Blog, I have proposed a new model called FairPay. FairPay re-envisions elements of freemium, paywalls, dynamic pricing, value/performance-based pricing, pay what you want, subscriptions, and loyalty programs, to provide a strong and sustainable customer revenue stream. FairPay offers a new kind of architecture for approximating an optimal price that is personal and context-dependent, by building a deep relationship that is based on dialogs about value. This solves the nasty problems of pricing digital products and other experience goods in a way that assures customer buy-in. This is explained at http://www.fairpayzone.com/p/overview.html.
3
First, get off FB. It doesn't do you any good.
Second, it's not because you pay for not being tracked that you won't be tracked...
Lastly, just stop consuming things you don't need.
"We buy things we don't need to impress people we don't even like..."
Second, it's not because you pay for not being tracked that you won't be tracked...
Lastly, just stop consuming things you don't need.
"We buy things we don't need to impress people we don't even like..."
4
Actually, although they naturally have their costs (some known and others hidden), FB and other social networks have done many people a GREAT deal of good by enriching their lives, enabling them to share moments of joy (and sadness, or just mundane moments) with others they otherwise would have less ability to connect with in an easy manner, especially distant relatives, bringing lost friends back into each other lives, exposing them to shared stories, articles, etc. that they might otherwise miss, etc. etc. etc.
The argument should be the other way around. Any website should not only be free; but rather users to use it.
They in turn learn through adaptive algorithms of our habits; our needs of products, our health (do a search on Asthma and you'll be getting ads on medicines etc.).
We may as well get paid to enrich-en those algorithms. We are after all providing free service for "Beta Testing" those ever new cache of the new products to come!
Let's pay the beta testers!
Welcome to the world of AI.
They in turn learn through adaptive algorithms of our habits; our needs of products, our health (do a search on Asthma and you'll be getting ads on medicines etc.).
We may as well get paid to enrich-en those algorithms. We are after all providing free service for "Beta Testing" those ever new cache of the new products to come!
Let's pay the beta testers!
Welcome to the world of AI.
If public television and theatrical movies are any example, paying for social media will not deter ad revenue, which is simply too lucrative--and the audience too passively accepting--to fight.
The best and easiest way to avoid invasion of privacy is avoid social media. There's still a big world out there full of people. If you think paying for Facebook, etc., will give you more control of how your personal info gets disseminated, all I can say is: be careful what you wish for.
The best and easiest way to avoid invasion of privacy is avoid social media. There's still a big world out there full of people. If you think paying for Facebook, etc., will give you more control of how your personal info gets disseminated, all I can say is: be careful what you wish for.
1
If your primary concern is data collection, paying for Facebook will not meaningfully change a thing.
While Facebook uses your site interactions to help target ads, the overwhelming majority of those actions are tracked and logged because they are essential to provide for the service. For example, Facebook needs to know who your friends are to know who to show your content to and it uses the ways in which you interact with content in order to try to deliver you a more engaging newsfeed.
While Facebook uses your site interactions to help target ads, the overwhelming majority of those actions are tracked and logged because they are essential to provide for the service. For example, Facebook needs to know who your friends are to know who to show your content to and it uses the ways in which you interact with content in order to try to deliver you a more engaging newsfeed.
People use AdBlock and starve publishers of money. Then those same people complain when these cash starved publishers adopt 'sneakier' methods of earning revenue, like data sharing, native advertising and product placement.
You can't have it both ways. There's no free lunch. Stop blocking ads and let publishers earn an honest trade.
You can't have it both ways. There's no free lunch. Stop blocking ads and let publishers earn an honest trade.
Users may be willing to spend $10 a month, but the financial backers say it is worth 10 times that. Hence, the extreme valuation based on hope. Try taking those tens of billions in valuation away and you'll see the emperor unclothed.
People should be compensated and rewarded for risk information that they share willingly. This is would realize the Internet’s democratizing capabilities and egalitarian promises.
Internet firms could readily participate, too. Compensating users for risk information willingly disclosed can resolve privacy concerns and creates voluminous, fresh revenues that occur from mining better quality data heretofore discerned algorithmically, not expressly revealed.
Marketcore, www.marketcore.com, a data wealth originator, has pioneered technologies and applications monetizing risk-revealing data that market participants willingly disclose.
To date, Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay and Facebook, among others, are exerting first mover advantages in search, sales and social media. So doing enables them to extend market dominance through optimizing these functionalities based on their capabilities. They manipulate user data and vend anonymized user experience data to advertisers and others who patronize their platforms.
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s comments concerning privacy and encryption highlight earlier this week attest to the attenuation of the initial, advertising iteration.
In today’s commentary, Zynep Tufekci delivers fine reporting and public service drawing attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the advertising model.
A viable new fusion of information and transactions, which each of us can control, can supersede the incumbent model.
Internet firms could readily participate, too. Compensating users for risk information willingly disclosed can resolve privacy concerns and creates voluminous, fresh revenues that occur from mining better quality data heretofore discerned algorithmically, not expressly revealed.
Marketcore, www.marketcore.com, a data wealth originator, has pioneered technologies and applications monetizing risk-revealing data that market participants willingly disclose.
To date, Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay and Facebook, among others, are exerting first mover advantages in search, sales and social media. So doing enables them to extend market dominance through optimizing these functionalities based on their capabilities. They manipulate user data and vend anonymized user experience data to advertisers and others who patronize their platforms.
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s comments concerning privacy and encryption highlight earlier this week attest to the attenuation of the initial, advertising iteration.
In today’s commentary, Zynep Tufekci delivers fine reporting and public service drawing attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the advertising model.
A viable new fusion of information and transactions, which each of us can control, can supersede the incumbent model.
1
Maybe. But is far more likely that people will just adapt to the environment that is and go on about their lives.
Personally I think it is rather cute when I buy a pair of table lamps and for the next two weeks all the ads on every site I visit wants to sell me more table lamps. Not worth bothering with.
Personally I think it is rather cute when I buy a pair of table lamps and for the next two weeks all the ads on every site I visit wants to sell me more table lamps. Not worth bothering with.
1
Please think about this: Mark Zuckerberg can know everything about you, Barack Obama should respect your privacy. Isn't it funny?
3
Not funny at all, actually. One, Zuckerberg, is entirely voluntary; a bargain, if you will -- FB users giving up information for free access to a media that many prefer or value over the privacy lost in the process. The other, the state, is not voluntary; the lost information may differ; it is, at times, coercive; at times unconstitutional; and may well lead to additional unintended government control of our lives. Apples and oranges, here.
Hmmm, I pay more than a few pennies a month for the NY Times, but that doesn't stop them from including just as many ads.
6
Exactly!!! This irks me every single day. Especially when the ads are NOT SILENT.
There is a lot of smug dismissal here of those who use facebook. Not everybody is using it to show vacation pictures of themselves. Some people use it to follow issues they care about. I could subscribe to a few dozen journals, instead I wait for them to pop up with stories in my newsfeed. I follow writers and hometown businesses. This provides them inexpensive and easy ways (a facebook page is far easier to maintain than a website) to reach their supporters.
And sure, I'd pay for it -- I pay for a subscription to the Times.
And sure, I'd pay for it -- I pay for a subscription to the Times.
3
And even for those using FB simply for vacation pictures, the condescending smugness of those who believe themselves to be superior than such supposedly mundane, less intelligent social network users is quite tiresome and annoying to many.
Thank you Prof. Tufekci for this terrific piece and thank you to the NYT for giving it space. I have largely avoided FB for just the privacy reasons you mentioned, but I am unlike other posters who think the answer is just "don't use social networks". That attitude misses the point that these sites are obviously providing people with useful ways to connect with friends, causes and services, or they would not be so popular. I have been kvetching privately to friends for years that I would be happy to pay a small amount to pay for the programmers, cloud storage, etc if FB or Google would give me the option. It may be that "Rick Starr" is right that the network effect will continue to overwhelm demand for privacy. But he may be wrong, and there could be an upstart competitor somewhere (probably somewhere in Europe) who appreciates this neglected side of the market working right now to eat FB's lunch. For others who like this idea, you might be interested in a Planet Money podcast that covers some of the same ground (Episode 568, Snoops, Hackers and Tin Foil Hats).
1
Nice article! But it would cost more than $1/mo. First quarter 2015 Facebook net profit was $512 mil, w Monthly Active Users of 1.44 billion. Per mo, only 12 cents. But more relevant are revenues, what fee-paid users would have to replace. First quarter revenue was $3.5 billion, $2.43/user/mo. If everyone paid $29 per year, Facebook would replace its revenues. But If only 1/4 pay: $126/yr. As people willing and able to pay such fees might be more valuable as ad-receivers, the annual fee would be higher. So the real fee might need to be $250 or more per yr. Still less than annual newspaper costs, much less than cable.
I too would like to be a customer, not a product. I'd pay $250 a year to stay clear of the tracking.
But there's more. Facebook might stop tracking, but what about the rest of the web, sifting my transactions for hints at my soul? I doubt I would be capable of paying off all of it, especially if Facebook being removed from the chase meant the other pursuers would become more valuable and able to chase harder.
Your secure browsing/micropayment concept is a start that could work, protecting our data at its source - our devices - rather than once it has leapt into the ether. Even if created, though, this would require that we would be willing to use only the websites that accept the implied dataflow constraints, and that users would be willing to stay in this narrow safe zone without wandering occasionally into the beckoning rest of the world.
I too would like to be a customer, not a product. I'd pay $250 a year to stay clear of the tracking.
But there's more. Facebook might stop tracking, but what about the rest of the web, sifting my transactions for hints at my soul? I doubt I would be capable of paying off all of it, especially if Facebook being removed from the chase meant the other pursuers would become more valuable and able to chase harder.
Your secure browsing/micropayment concept is a start that could work, protecting our data at its source - our devices - rather than once it has leapt into the ether. Even if created, though, this would require that we would be willing to use only the websites that accept the implied dataflow constraints, and that users would be willing to stay in this narrow safe zone without wandering occasionally into the beckoning rest of the world.
4
As I sit here I am appalled about how I am being tracked and targeted by these companies.
I realize that it affects my daily life in so many many ways.
I just wish I could think of one way that it actually affects me. But I cant. Other than I see ads for things I like.
Regardless, its obviously affecting me greatly, even though its actually not.
I realize that it affects my daily life in so many many ways.
I just wish I could think of one way that it actually affects me. But I cant. Other than I see ads for things I like.
Regardless, its obviously affecting me greatly, even though its actually not.
Internet ads are worthless because they are always generated from something I looked at, and either bought or rejected.
I don't use Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn or any of those other "data grabbing to feed the NSA" sites. I do use Twitter, but mostly to insult the NSA, NY Times stenographers and Dems and Repubs equally. Also as a news source. Email, the phone and the USPS work fine to communicate with friends and family.
I don't use Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn or any of those other "data grabbing to feed the NSA" sites. I do use Twitter, but mostly to insult the NSA, NY Times stenographers and Dems and Repubs equally. Also as a news source. Email, the phone and the USPS work fine to communicate with friends and family.
1
“I want to pay a small fee for the right to keep my information private and to be able to hear from the people I want — not the sponsored-content makers I want to avoid.”
The bottom line is “ad-based businesses” are the online world’s version of “corporations are people.” Corporations thrive on invading your privacy – they want to know what you eat, read, watch, like, hate, etc. on a 24x7 basis – and they are willing to buy ads on your Facebook page at pennies on the revenue dollar.
I am not sure paying for Facebook will “avoid” this problem. I pay more than a small monthly fee for LinkedIn and I can’t avoid the sponsored content in my feed. It might not be as obtrusive as Facebook as yet, but it is slowly getting there.
The bottom line is “ad-based businesses” are the online world’s version of “corporations are people.” Corporations thrive on invading your privacy – they want to know what you eat, read, watch, like, hate, etc. on a 24x7 basis – and they are willing to buy ads on your Facebook page at pennies on the revenue dollar.
I am not sure paying for Facebook will “avoid” this problem. I pay more than a small monthly fee for LinkedIn and I can’t avoid the sponsored content in my feed. It might not be as obtrusive as Facebook as yet, but it is slowly getting there.
2
Government surveillance is child-play compared to Facebook and Google, the heads of which are super-protective of their own privacy. It is time, as outlined, for social media that is pay per use, and will not sell your information to the highest bidder, manipulate the information presented to you and invade your privacy with impunity. I have no interest in living in the dystopia created by the egomaniacal minds of perennial masters-of-the-universe adolescents who are utterly devoid of any ethics.
2
First let me say I would not believe anything Mark Zuckerberg says, he has lied so often! Second I think that facebook is an extortion site and a scam! Used to be when you posted something many of your friends/likes would see the post. But now facebook decides who will or won't see your post and then it is like 3-4%. So now comes the extortion, if you want more people to see it you have to pay for that. Not only is facebook making $$ selling your info to advertisers, they also try to track everywhere you go on the internet after you leave their site. The talk about the CIA actually running facebook seems more plausible the more I read about it http://www.therealnewsonline.com/our-blogs/facebook-and-its-connections-... I don't understand how a company as successful as facebook has no real competition. One thing you can be sure of in the business world is that if your a huge success. like facebook, you will be copied. But no one has really tried to, making me believe that facebook is run by the government.
5
I so agree with this because. I've often wondered the same thing. How come Facebook has absolutely no competition and the competition that they did have (Instragram and Whatsapp) they bought them out. I have since stopped believing that Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook is run by the government.
Zeynep,
You don't have to look very far to see that companies that charge for access still collect data and bombard paying customers with advertising.
It's a great idea, though, and one I have nearly every time I log in to my paid subscription to the New York Times. Each time I have to minimize an ad, click off the Times Store pop-up, or wait for the car commercial to end on a multimedia report, I think to myself... "wow, I pay $30 a month for my NY Times subscription, but I still have ads blasted at me non-stop. How much more will it take to make them go away..."
Change starts at home, Ms. Tufekci. Maybe you should start with your own organization. Speaking of rich guys who run media companies, I certainly hope you ran this piece by your chairman Mr. Sulzberger or your CEO Mr. Thompson.
Maybe when you do a story on how your own company charges for content but still forces ads on customers you can throw out a line about their multi-million dollar New York city apartments or homes in Westchester and the Hamptons.
You don't have to look very far to see that companies that charge for access still collect data and bombard paying customers with advertising.
It's a great idea, though, and one I have nearly every time I log in to my paid subscription to the New York Times. Each time I have to minimize an ad, click off the Times Store pop-up, or wait for the car commercial to end on a multimedia report, I think to myself... "wow, I pay $30 a month for my NY Times subscription, but I still have ads blasted at me non-stop. How much more will it take to make them go away..."
Change starts at home, Ms. Tufekci. Maybe you should start with your own organization. Speaking of rich guys who run media companies, I certainly hope you ran this piece by your chairman Mr. Sulzberger or your CEO Mr. Thompson.
Maybe when you do a story on how your own company charges for content but still forces ads on customers you can throw out a line about their multi-million dollar New York city apartments or homes in Westchester and the Hamptons.
3
The technology is available whereby one can run her own "social sharing" application in her wifi router, for example and share content just like she does in Facebook or other such sites. Apart from a browser, there are no additional requirements on her friends to access the shared content. Data all the time resides in the router and under full control of the user. It is not difficult to operate and maintain this app.
But the problem is marketing such a product when the market is focused only on a centralized solution, not a decentralized one. (I am not thinking of diaspora* when I write this.)
But the problem is marketing such a product when the market is focused only on a centralized solution, not a decentralized one. (I am not thinking of diaspora* when I write this.)
There are many explanations on the net of exactly how toxic some permutations of Facebook's algorithm have been. There have been a number of quantitative studies on the effects of purchasing targeted exposure that actually show how groups/pages' exposure is actually damaged and become dependent on more advertising.
1) Person buys xxxx pageviews/likes from facebook
2) Those likes come from people who are shown to participate orders of magnitude less in the community than organic likes (many question the integrity/validity of people who like ads)
3) FB's algorithms rank articles in news feeds based on activity of a group/page's audience
4) Groups/pages are *stuck* with inactive users that hurt their rankings to everyone.
5) Fewer and fewer people who actually want to see the content get to.
1) Person buys xxxx pageviews/likes from facebook
2) Those likes come from people who are shown to participate orders of magnitude less in the community than organic likes (many question the integrity/validity of people who like ads)
3) FB's algorithms rank articles in news feeds based on activity of a group/page's audience
4) Groups/pages are *stuck* with inactive users that hurt their rankings to everyone.
5) Fewer and fewer people who actually want to see the content get to.
1
I already pay for it every day, but it goes to my ISP.
Read the article today on Korea and you'll see its a policy decision and a monopoly decision to keep us firmly stuck where we are. The cable companies love it, the Cell companies love it. The advertisers love it.
Keep in mind that a walled environment won't keep anyone out anyway, so why pay for it.
and PS, I will never, ever , pay for these useless things. Betty White was right.
Read the article today on Korea and you'll see its a policy decision and a monopoly decision to keep us firmly stuck where we are. The cable companies love it, the Cell companies love it. The advertisers love it.
Keep in mind that a walled environment won't keep anyone out anyway, so why pay for it.
and PS, I will never, ever , pay for these useless things. Betty White was right.
1
I believe Professor Tufekci is being incredibly naive in this op-ed essay. Her personal browsing-habits data, aggregated with the millions of other users of these web services, is much more valuable to Google, Facebook (FB), and thousands of other so-called Web 2.0 tech companies than anything amount these companies could reasonably charge her. That's why there is no "premium" version of Facebook. They don't want one.
What she is proposing would only make more work for them, as they would have to segregate her browsing data out from everybody else's and present it as a separate category to the advertisers and data brokers who buy this data to find out who is looking at what for how long. Plus, Google, FB, et al, would simply write up new, more confusing, end-user agreements about what happens to the browsing data of those with "premium" paid accounts. It's not like that data wouldn't be used, because it would. The only questions are how it would be used, and by whom, for what purposes. It's all just grist for the huge data mill in cyberspace.
The only reasonable approach is to assume everything you do online will potentially be seen by everyone everywhere on earth. There is no privacy online. It is a fiction. This is not hyperbole. It is fact. Ask security expert, Brian Krebs, about this matter if you don't believe me.
2
To me, Facebook is a curious (and possibly pernicious) blend of voyeurism and exhibitionism. I tried to participate but it gave me too many creepy feelings.
To each his own, I guess.
To each his own, I guess.
2
My home page on my browser is set to Google search. Today when I opened it the Google logo wished me a happy birthday. No doubt Ms. Tufekci would think this is a terrible invasion of my privacy, since obviously Google knows enough about me to know my birthday. I actually am not all that worried about my privacy and do not resent advertisements that are targeted to me. Sometimes I even buy something because of them. Google and Facebook are funded by these advertisements. My loss of privacy has been totally voluntary on my part. However, what I have gotten in return is access to the whole world. The Google search engine can find virtually anything I am interested in seconds and most of Google's services are free (e.g. the calender, google drive, gmail, etc.) Facebook has introduced me to people that I otherwise would have never met and I have been enriched by meeting them. Being targeted by ads is a very small price to pay for what I get in return. No one forces anyone to use Facebook or anything else on the internet. Many users could not afford to pay for these services.
16
This idea of a premium price for a no-advertising Facebook option is brilliant. Kindle already deploys the strategy with one Kindle without ads a modestly higher price than one with ads.
13
I don't use social media all that much. Facebook not at all and never have. I got turned off when in the 1980s I was helping build large databases of peoples (consumers ) information from stores and credit cards they used. When the Internet came along we tried (and failed back then) to move to digital collections. But I saw what we could deduce, how we could target people based on their buying habits and more, I was professionally engaged but morally turned off.
So when all the social media came along, I never wanted to expose myself to their digital capturing. People thought I was nuts for not having a Facebook account. Now more and more people are rebelling against the capture and use of data for profit by a wide number of companies. That said, there is no going back on this... only small "rebellions" where some data may not be collected and used but only after much protest.
So when all the social media came along, I never wanted to expose myself to their digital capturing. People thought I was nuts for not having a Facebook account. Now more and more people are rebelling against the capture and use of data for profit by a wide number of companies. That said, there is no going back on this... only small "rebellions" where some data may not be collected and used but only after much protest.
20
Even if the Facebook and other social networking sites are paid for in order to protect personal data, what about the State surveillance and data tracking of citizens that's going on 24x7?
6
All the ads I was seeing annoyed me. I installed an ad-blocker software. The result is that my NYT does not have many ads but does have a lot of empty space. Occasionally there is a little line in the upper right-hand corner of a blank page where I click "Skip this Ad," which is easy to do.
I also subscribe to a web page that I use as my "start" page which delivers an ad-free version if you give the organization a small donation annually.
I also subscribe to a web page that I use as my "start" page which delivers an ad-free version if you give the organization a small donation annually.
3
I have the same problem with the Ad based NYT online version. I would gladly pay extra to read an Ad limited version. Why don't you offer it??
5
For a long time I've been amused, in a perverse way, by those people who howl about the NSA collecting phone call metadata, but have no problem letting Facebook, Google, etc., know far more about what they are thinking and doing.
3
I would never pay for my son or daughters Facebook, twitter use. There is absolutely no worth in these sites to justify payment.
2
Are you really paying for privacy though? If you're advocating the $1/month model, presumably that would still require users to plug in their credit card info. That right there squashes the "privacy" angle. Big side-eye to this position.
7
Moving to a subscriber model would make platforms like Facebook nominally accountable to their users, or so it is said. However, I pay a small fee to Yahoo every year to have a larger email account, and I still can't get a hold of any support agents when something goes wrong or I can't update my billing information because they've made the user interface incomprehensible.
In the old days when you did pay to subscribe to the Internet, the smaller providers (who were often good) were frequently bought up by larger providers (who promptly laid off all the support staff and hired offshore robots, if you were lucky).
In the old days when you did pay to subscribe to the Internet, the smaller providers (who were often good) were frequently bought up by larger providers (who promptly laid off all the support staff and hired offshore robots, if you were lucky).
1
I may be an old foggie but I trashed Facebook several years ago never to sign on again. If you are worried about privacy then take your telephone and toss it in the trash. You reveal more about yourself on the phone than most people do on Facebook and the good old NSA is sitting there collecting it all.
2
Right on, Ms. Tufecki.
For years now, I have asked my friends "Wouldn't you be willing to pay for Google?" and they invariably said "Yes". I remember many years ago when people were outraged at even the idea of 'paying for TV', but today we all do, often over a hundred dollars a month for channels we don't want and never watch.
It is the most basic assumptions in business that must continually be questioned. The idee fixe that 'the internet should be free' is a remnant of its rebellious early beginnings. But now the entrepreneurs who built these fabulous new services have cashed in with IPO's and must struggle with how to monetize their value without compromising their users' experience.
How long will it take them to understand their users will not abandon them if they charged for us for them?
For years now, I have asked my friends "Wouldn't you be willing to pay for Google?" and they invariably said "Yes". I remember many years ago when people were outraged at even the idea of 'paying for TV', but today we all do, often over a hundred dollars a month for channels we don't want and never watch.
It is the most basic assumptions in business that must continually be questioned. The idee fixe that 'the internet should be free' is a remnant of its rebellious early beginnings. But now the entrepreneurs who built these fabulous new services have cashed in with IPO's and must struggle with how to monetize their value without compromising their users' experience.
How long will it take them to understand their users will not abandon them if they charged for us for them?
1
What ads? I haven't seen one on my FB account for months. Why? Because I systematically X'd out all that appeared and marked "not interested". I also use AdBlock, which blocks most ads.
And I ignore what does show up. In fact, I can't recall a single ad. Maybe that's why I think there haven't been any on my FB account... ;-)
BTW, if NYT could guarantee no ads, I'd be happy to pay a lot more for access.
And I ignore what does show up. In fact, I can't recall a single ad. Maybe that's why I think there haven't been any on my FB account... ;-)
BTW, if NYT could guarantee no ads, I'd be happy to pay a lot more for access.
5
I've used Facebook for years simply as a way to have conversations with friends who I ordinarily wouldn't run into, showing photos, reacting to events, holding forth. For me, it's like a pub gathering that you can dip into whenever you feel like it - a wonderful thing. I don't pay attention to the ads, but now they're in the timeline, pushing out the conversations. So I would happily pay for the platform.
Facebook users should be paid. Just by joining and posting content, users add VALUE to the network that allows Mr. Zuckerberg to extract more profits for himself and other shareholders. The have the capability to develop an algorithm that could determine each user's value based time logged on, posts, views and likes received. I agree with Ralph Nader and Laurel Ptak:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177887/should-facebook-pay-its-users#
More importantly than the privacy issue, we need to address the connection between a "work world" increasingly dominated by information technology and software-driven, labor-less business models that can scale globally (in a few short years) and rise and persistence of massive inequality. This trend is causing fissures in the "social contract" as it undermined the prospects for economic vitality for so many and leaves political power in the hands of the few folks like Mr. Zuckerberg.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177887/should-facebook-pay-its-users#
More importantly than the privacy issue, we need to address the connection between a "work world" increasingly dominated by information technology and software-driven, labor-less business models that can scale globally (in a few short years) and rise and persistence of massive inequality. This trend is causing fissures in the "social contract" as it undermined the prospects for economic vitality for so many and leaves political power in the hands of the few folks like Mr. Zuckerberg.
6
"FACEBOOK. Instagram. Google. Twitter. All services we rely on"
Speak for yourself.
I don't use any of them. If I want to talk with someone I call them. If I want to write someone I do just that with an email, on a $20 email server I control in my hall closet, or I get out a pen an paper.
I don't have any problem with "controlling" my information as I just don't give it away. One you buy into the notion that one has to "privacy is worth paying for" you have already lost it.
The dozen UC Berkley MLS's I worked for as an undergraduate at my local junior college would be incensed that you as a Librarian have bought into this privacy steeling hula-hoop craze.
A pay for privacy solution just means that people with money will have privacy and everyone who cannot pay will not.
Stupid.
Speak for yourself.
I don't use any of them. If I want to talk with someone I call them. If I want to write someone I do just that with an email, on a $20 email server I control in my hall closet, or I get out a pen an paper.
I don't have any problem with "controlling" my information as I just don't give it away. One you buy into the notion that one has to "privacy is worth paying for" you have already lost it.
The dozen UC Berkley MLS's I worked for as an undergraduate at my local junior college would be incensed that you as a Librarian have bought into this privacy steeling hula-hoop craze.
A pay for privacy solution just means that people with money will have privacy and everyone who cannot pay will not.
Stupid.
12
"Facebook. Instagram. Google. Twitter. All services we rely on..."
I don't rely on any of those. I keep my Facebook account deactivated when I'm not using it, and I've never used Instagram or Twitter. I occasionally use Google, but prefer to use DuckDuckGo, a search engine which doesn't collect or share personal information. I don't pay for these services, nor do I intend to. Either they're not essential, or there are free alternatives that don't collect personal information. And of course, good ad-blockers are essential. I don't pay for online content, with very few exceptions. I get to use the NYT digital version because I subscribe to the printed edition.
I don't rely on any of those. I keep my Facebook account deactivated when I'm not using it, and I've never used Instagram or Twitter. I occasionally use Google, but prefer to use DuckDuckGo, a search engine which doesn't collect or share personal information. I don't pay for these services, nor do I intend to. Either they're not essential, or there are free alternatives that don't collect personal information. And of course, good ad-blockers are essential. I don't pay for online content, with very few exceptions. I get to use the NYT digital version because I subscribe to the printed edition.
4
Zuckerberg and his ilk will never change their business models, which run on content users foolishly provide at no cost, unless something more profitable comes along or unless government forces them to change.
The latter will never happen because the Zuckerbergs of this world own the legislative process.
And if there's a way for Facebook & Co. to increase their revenues, it will probably involve making even better use of even more of the users' data.
The only option left is to exile yourself from the social media, which are neither social nor media. Look behind the screen and you'll see a colossal strip mining operation in full swing. The ore they're ripping out of the ground is . . . you.
The latter will never happen because the Zuckerbergs of this world own the legislative process.
And if there's a way for Facebook & Co. to increase their revenues, it will probably involve making even better use of even more of the users' data.
The only option left is to exile yourself from the social media, which are neither social nor media. Look behind the screen and you'll see a colossal strip mining operation in full swing. The ore they're ripping out of the ground is . . . you.
12
Funny and annoying. I am constantly bombarded with ads for products for which I have little or no interest. You buy a one off gift online and then it's as if you are in the business of daily buying that same gift over and over and over and over. When the fact is that you bought the gift, you will never buy another and yet the internet bombards you with ads for that which you will never buy another. Also, you check into something, merely for information. So you have the information, but the ads keep coming and coming when you have absolutely not need, nor interest in them.
I suppose it works will for mindless shoppers whose occupation is shopping. But it doesn't really work for me.
I suppose it works will for mindless shoppers whose occupation is shopping. But it doesn't really work for me.
6
Why doesn't the NY Times follow the suggested model and let us browse the web site and be charge pennies for each article we click on rather than a flat fee for a subscription no matter how much we use the service?
1
It's pretty funny that the Times is running this op-ed. Every time I come to the front page, it freezes until a flashy ad takes over the top of the page. I can't even see the headlines until I hunt down the tiny X and click it to close the ad, much less scroll down to see what else is in the paper. There are ads on the masthead and ads on every individual story's page. Some of them even flash to get your attention. Sure, there are ads in the print edition, but you aren't a captive.
Most, if not all, of us are paying to subscribe so that we can read the whole paper, not just our 10 free articles per month. We still get the ads, everywhere, all the time, pay or not. Websites are happy to take our money, and just as happy to take it from the advertisers.
Most, if not all, of us are paying to subscribe so that we can read the whole paper, not just our 10 free articles per month. We still get the ads, everywhere, all the time, pay or not. Websites are happy to take our money, and just as happy to take it from the advertisers.
123
I use Firefox and its ad-blocker add-on. No ads -- ever.
1
I agree wholeheartedly. A dollar a month? Sounds good. And, I want to see the data file they are collecting and have collected on me. It's the new credit report. It's my info and I want to know what it says. An advertiser can get it but not me?
I also definitely want to know what info google has--besides my email, calendar, navigation, YouTube views, search terms, purchase history, OMG!! They know everything! At least I don't have Google Fit, which collects your fitness data. Yet.
I also definitely want to know what info google has--besides my email, calendar, navigation, YouTube views, search terms, purchase history, OMG!! They know everything! At least I don't have Google Fit, which collects your fitness data. Yet.
33
paying for privacy in the public square reminds me of a story my grandmother told of blueberry picking. She lived in a neighborhood of italian immigrants in a small town in the Northeast. Every year, people in the neighborhood would go out to pick wild blueberries which grew on public untended fields. they would go early in the morning, gather berries and spend the rest of the day cooking pies, jams, cakes. one year, they get up at the usual early hour for blueberry picking day, they get out to the fields, and all of the bushes had been stripped clean. they return to the neighborhood to find one family who hadn't shown up for blueberry picking, had setup a stand on the street SELLING the blueberries. the next year, the same thing. the profit-mongering neighbors would strip clean the berries grown on public lands and sell them for their own profit. the family went on to run local businesses/markets. to my grandmother, the offense/violation of public trust was so great, she refused to ever set foot in any of their shops.
to me, zuckerberg is just another profit-mongering berry picker. found a way to take the blueberries grown in the public square, and repackage them to be sold for his own profit.
unlike my grandmother, I've given up on America, and say kudos to him. the only thing valued in america is making personal profit. strip the bushes clean, and make your neighbors pay! get it while the gettin is good. ;)
to me, zuckerberg is just another profit-mongering berry picker. found a way to take the blueberries grown in the public square, and repackage them to be sold for his own profit.
unlike my grandmother, I've given up on America, and say kudos to him. the only thing valued in america is making personal profit. strip the bushes clean, and make your neighbors pay! get it while the gettin is good. ;)
104
This is faulty logic. We're talking about a business enterprise, not plants that grow wild. While the commons is an important thing -- and is being lost -- to suggest that a business enterprise should be part of it is silly.
This is a good argument, but why is it solely directed to Facebook? I am more annoyed about companies like People Search who are selling my personal data to whoever pays for it; address, birthday, income, relatives, etc. How come I have no copyright over my personal data and how come strangers can sell it without my approval?
162
User-supported venues on the Web would be more likely to
evolve where users are simply tired of having ads interfere
with the total viewing experience -- by slowing down page
loading, by suffocating with visual clutter, by crashing
less-robust tablet browsers. Privacy will be only a secondary
issue. News media sites are a large class of sites where
this could happen. Yet the availability of ad-blocking software
so far hasn't seemed to pose even a remote threat to
their advertisers. If it were built into browsers and turned
on by default, it might be another matter.
evolve where users are simply tired of having ads interfere
with the total viewing experience -- by slowing down page
loading, by suffocating with visual clutter, by crashing
less-robust tablet browsers. Privacy will be only a secondary
issue. News media sites are a large class of sites where
this could happen. Yet the availability of ad-blocking software
so far hasn't seemed to pose even a remote threat to
their advertisers. If it were built into browsers and turned
on by default, it might be another matter.
At first, the personalized ads creeped me out. I got used to it and on occasion, I even find it helpful (time-saving). Just not that big a deal. As for Facebook, I wouldn't pay a dime for it. Google for sure - couldn't live without google.
And I would bet anything that paying for this stuff won't eliminate the advertising. The revenue from subscribers would be in addition to ad revenue.
My evidence? I pay for the NYT online and I'm still inundated with ads. True - they aren't tracking me or I would not be seeing ads for high fashion, $60,000 watches, and other 1% products. On the other hand, maybe they are tracking me because I am seeing lots of ads for rugs (which I am looking for) and good walking shoes (which I am looking for).
And I would bet anything that paying for this stuff won't eliminate the advertising. The revenue from subscribers would be in addition to ad revenue.
My evidence? I pay for the NYT online and I'm still inundated with ads. True - they aren't tracking me or I would not be seeing ads for high fashion, $60,000 watches, and other 1% products. On the other hand, maybe they are tracking me because I am seeing lots of ads for rugs (which I am looking for) and good walking shoes (which I am looking for).
122
You should install an ad blocker and tracker blocker. They are free and easy to install on voth Chrome and Firefox. Ads, even on the NYT, are ugly, distracting, and consume bandwidth causing the pages to load slower. And don't let anyone tell you it's immoral or wrong. It's absolutely the right thing to do.
1
rugs? shoes? Do you think maybe you are being tracked?Anything I look up is instantly on NYT.
People who use these social networking sites aren't the least bit interested in privacy, some of them haven't even a grasp as to the meaning of the word. Facebook has become for some people a visual diary of their daily lives where they chronicle the most mundane activities.... going to bed now, walking the dog now, have a headache, taking two aspirin now. For others it is a public forum for the most intimate and personal information, from fights with ex spouses, more than anyone needs to know medical information, and sometimes the last dying days of a relative. If they don't care that everyone they know has just been privy to their most intimate information, are they really going to pay to stop advertisers from knowing about them? Not likely. Moreover, these social networking sites are not necessary. People can get along just fine without them. I certainly wouldn't pay to be a part of it. What nonsense. I think we all just need to get over the fact that there is no such thing as privacy anymore. Even if you think there is, there isn't. Anyone can find out anything about you with a few keystrokes. Such is the price we pay for living the twenty-first century.
60
You are confusing privacy with secrecy. Privacy is the right to own yourself and your identity—that's what this column is about. Secrecy has always been porous, and gossip is pernicious without online facilitation. You can expose your secrets without surrendering your right to privacy. If I write a book about the most intimate details of my life, that doesn't give you the right to intrude on my life. You have a right to "view" my life through my book, but not to act on the knowledge to intrude on my privacy. That is, if you learn through my book that I love orange roses, that doesn't give you a license to come to my house every day and deliver orange roses to my front porch. My love of orange roses is not a secret, but that doesn't mean you can use your knowledge of me to intrude on my life. That this happens online or virtually doesn't change the principle of how we draw the boundaries.
1
"People who use these social networking sites aren't the least bit interested in privacy ..."
_________________
Actually, some of us are interested in privacy.
And we post accordingly.
_________________
Actually, some of us are interested in privacy.
And we post accordingly.
1
Not that your comment is dripping with condescension to those who regularly use and enjoy social networks or anything. You're clearly "above" all that - I guess, thankfully, because you have "a grip" on things. Although I am sure you would like to tell the world of social networks users to get a life, I suspect that you are the one that needs the life, i.e., one that you can take a moment to enjoy.
1
The main culprit in all of this goes back to the days when our politicians - in their infinite wisdom - decreed that instead of all these services being required to get our permission to collect our private information, we had to file documents to "opt out" of something that we never realized was even going on. I've always wondered who paid whom to have "opt out" become established policy instead of "opt in".
13
"If you don't like being tracked, don't use social media/google/the internet" is a pretty weak argument. The internet, and social media in particular, has provided us with the tools to form egalitarian communities and to pursue our interests - whatever those may be - with unprecedented ease of access. And keep in mind, the whole infrastructure of the internet is only about 20 years old with the advent of social media being about 10-12 years old.
To all of those who deny the huge positive impact of Facebook, Google, and social media in general simply because we are still figuring out how to monetize the internet ethically, you come across as reactionaries. This opinion piece is a very well reasoned suggestion. We don't just turn away from new technology every time there's growing pains.
To all of those who deny the huge positive impact of Facebook, Google, and social media in general simply because we are still figuring out how to monetize the internet ethically, you come across as reactionaries. This opinion piece is a very well reasoned suggestion. We don't just turn away from new technology every time there's growing pains.
64
"'If you don't like being tracked, don't use social media/google/the internet' is a pretty weak argument."
I don't think it's a weak argument at all.
Facebook alone has 1,500,000,000 active users and the majority of them are completely indifferent, if they're aware at all, that their data is being mined or the site is using algorithms to push specific content your way. You don't have to be one of those people who are indifferent but neither do you have to use a service you don't like.
I don't think it's a weak argument at all.
Facebook alone has 1,500,000,000 active users and the majority of them are completely indifferent, if they're aware at all, that their data is being mined or the site is using algorithms to push specific content your way. You don't have to be one of those people who are indifferent but neither do you have to use a service you don't like.
There is a terrible flaw in th analysis. That $0.20 is *profit*. It takes a lot more than that to pay for all the underlying infrastructure, servers, programmers, salespeople, backbone, research, rent-light-heat-water, and other costs that Facebook has. And, FWIW, the moment you start charging for it; you decrease the number of users by 60-90% or so (we have comparisons with pay-radio and premium TV). Given that it's the 'network effect' that makes these services useful, you are advocating for a less robust system and a model which likely will not work or will be a faint shadow of what it is now.
You could better spend time figuring out what restrictions might be placed on the use of personal information, and which would be acceptable to users while still being useful to the companies themselves.
You could better spend time figuring out what restrictions might be placed on the use of personal information, and which would be acceptable to users while still being useful to the companies themselves.
17
What would this country be like if those 20 hours on Facebook were spent reading a book, walking through a museum, taking a course ---it would be viable democracy---instead of the bread and circuses culture we now have become.
53
This was obviously written by someone who does not use Facebook and has no idea of what it offers. FB not only keeps me in contact with friends and family in a viable way, it keeps me up-to-date in my profession and on top of what's going on in the world better than any news source. Further, it is a great tool for democracy, keeping people engaged and informed.
Get off Facebook. It doesn't nothing good for you and a lot of bad.
15
I think it's call the Turkey Theory and it always work with human. Facebook users are just like the theory goes -- at the farm the turkey believes that his best friend is the farmer but little he knows that the farmer's intention is to get him fat and dead!
23
Facebook's News Feed is the classic example of how the creeping advertising algorithm undermines the quality of the product. This feed used to provide users with an entertaining view of "friends" message and photo posts. Now it is cluttered with sponsored messages and links to things your friends have "liked", no doubt hoping to translate to some sort of click based revenue for Facebook. It is clearly not easy to provide users with content that they really want to see for nothing.
2
Dear Ms. Tufekci,
Apparently I missed the part about "Facebook" being mandatory for everyone. Silly me.
It is really quite simple: don't go on "Facebook", don't "Tweet" and don't share "embarrassing" photos and information on the Internet. For it always seems, time and again, this "information" is not secure.
But in this ego absorbed world of "Selfies", "likes" on Facebook, quests for that 15 minutes of fame, "social media" is the only venue left for the talentless to display their, well, "lack of talent" (Really, "trending now" doesn't mean what it says; if you do something stupid and post it on an Internet site the only "trend' seems to be trumpeting one's ignorance).
I may be somewhat "Ludditey" appearing but the evolution of vapid television seems the equally vapid Internet with the lowest common denominator having yet to be found, shudder.
As for me, if you want to get in touch, give me a call on my, get this, LAND LINE and I will gladly talk to you. I'm in the phonebook and I do screen calls with caller I.D. So far, nobody has advertised on my phone, yet.
Apparently I missed the part about "Facebook" being mandatory for everyone. Silly me.
It is really quite simple: don't go on "Facebook", don't "Tweet" and don't share "embarrassing" photos and information on the Internet. For it always seems, time and again, this "information" is not secure.
But in this ego absorbed world of "Selfies", "likes" on Facebook, quests for that 15 minutes of fame, "social media" is the only venue left for the talentless to display their, well, "lack of talent" (Really, "trending now" doesn't mean what it says; if you do something stupid and post it on an Internet site the only "trend' seems to be trumpeting one's ignorance).
I may be somewhat "Ludditey" appearing but the evolution of vapid television seems the equally vapid Internet with the lowest common denominator having yet to be found, shudder.
As for me, if you want to get in touch, give me a call on my, get this, LAND LINE and I will gladly talk to you. I'm in the phonebook and I do screen calls with caller I.D. So far, nobody has advertised on my phone, yet.
16
You mean you don't get the incessant phone spam from people trying to sell you insurance, new credit cards, etc.? I do; and that despite being listed on the so-called "Do Not Call List."
The best thing about the internet is cutting your land line for VoIP. It is good, cheap, dirt cheap for overseas, and there is NO phone book. I have not had telemarketing calls in 10 years. No need to mention that I don't do social media.
I do not need "Facebook" or "Google" or any "social network" in order to live my life. And I don't understand the dependence on them or the attraction to them. I like e-mail, and reading some papers online because it is free The Sunday NYT is well out of my budget at $5. Otherwise, I live life in three dimensions, no screens, pods, pads, berries, etc. I do not even have a television set. I am active, I have friends.
13
While I agree with the general sentiment of the writer, I cannot understand how it is that so many people seem to be ignorant of ad blocking software.
Ad blocking software is free, drastically reduces the ability of companies to track your behavior, drastically reduces the chance of acquiring a virus/malware/spyware, etc. Best of all, it cleans all of that clutter and garbage off all web pages, facebook included.
Ad blocking software is free, drastically reduces the ability of companies to track your behavior, drastically reduces the chance of acquiring a virus/malware/spyware, etc. Best of all, it cleans all of that clutter and garbage off all web pages, facebook included.
5
I agree - I'm similarly baffled by the number of commenters here who seem oblivious to the existence of ad-block software. Perhaps it's the age demographic of the commenters here. I am guessing most are older. I'm 66 and used ad block ad-ons on all my browsers for years, but I was in IT before I retired, so I know I'm not typical. Perhaps the commonly voiced idea that older people don't know much about technology is true when people speak of that demographic as a whole. That's too bad, because, from a simple user perspective, it's certainly not rocket science.
1
We're not paying for the services because we're not their customers; we're part of their products. We exchange our privacy (priceless) for something free.
16
It would be great to be able to use Facebook in a user-controlled way. I like being able to post articles I think my friends would be interested in. Facebook is, or used to be, invaluable for groups who need to communicate with their members. I also think the low-cost ability to communicate with citizens is valuable for politicians -- Bernie Sanders comes to mind -- who abjure big-money campaigns. But I admit I'm cynical about the extent to which FB or Google or any big-platform entity would allow me to pay a fee to control my privacy or my unfettered access to what others post. Maybe a competitive entrepreneur should start up an alternative social media site that does offer an ad-free means of public communication. I think a lot of people would migrate to it instantly.
4
Zuckerman points out that Facebook makes about 20 cents profit per user per month. The author describes this as a pitiful sum. Given that Facebook has more than a billion users, I suggest this is a far from pitiful sum.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/04/facebook-in-numbers...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/04/facebook-in-numbers...
9
I know, right. 20 cents times 1,000,000,000 (one billion) per month is a lot of cents.
I pay for the NY Times and I get annoying ads. I would not pay Facebook not to show me ads or hoard my data for two reasons. First of all, I don't pay attention to the ads. Second, I don't for one minute believe that they would not hoard or sell my data to another corporation. Facebook is merely a tool to stay in touch. It's not revolutionary technology. It doesn't contribute anything to better the world. It's a place where people can brag about their accomplishments, say rude things about others, occasionally find a group that is useful, but that's about it. Given how much can be stolen from us or used against us if we reveal too much on Facebook, I use it with much more restraint than I do my phone or any letters I write.
In short, I do not trust Facebook or any other site to safeguard my personal information, care about what ads it shows me, or to be worth very much simply because there are too many trolls out there who love to say inflammatory or hurtful things to others or about others. I watch what I say in my emails for the same reasons: you never who can intercept them. It's not a federal offense to hack someone's email. It is a federal offense to tamper with a letter.
In short, I do not trust Facebook or any other site to safeguard my personal information, care about what ads it shows me, or to be worth very much simply because there are too many trolls out there who love to say inflammatory or hurtful things to others or about others. I watch what I say in my emails for the same reasons: you never who can intercept them. It's not a federal offense to hack someone's email. It is a federal offense to tamper with a letter.
13
Install AdBlockPlus on all the browsers you use. It works. I don't see many advertisements with this ad-on.
1
"Mr. Zuckerberg has reportedly spent more than $30 million to buy the homes around his in Palo Alto, Calif., and more than $100 million for a secluded parcel of land in Hawaii. He knows privacy is worth paying for. So he should let us pay a few dollars to protect ours."
BINGO! I love it, Mz Tufekci!
And I love DuckDuckGo. No ads which annoyingly let me know I'm being tracked. And with different search results than Google.
BINGO! I love it, Mz Tufekci!
And I love DuckDuckGo. No ads which annoyingly let me know I'm being tracked. And with different search results than Google.
2
DuckDuckGo blanks out Facebook when I try to access it. Not that I really want to, since even my own real friends load their pages with reposted stuff that clogs the feed. Better than surveillance, though. Time to close the face book.
Mark Z is wealthy because he controls a company worth $235 billion in the stock market. That is about the same market value as JP Morgan Chase and more than Bank of America and Citi. 4 times the market value of General Motors.
Facebook will earn $5,600,000,000 this year. Way more than 20 cents per user.
Wall Street loves the FB business model and would not like any change. There is no Facebook without ads. Advertisers love targeted ads.
No company in the world can offer more information about such a large number of people.
Facebook will earn $5,600,000,000 this year. Way more than 20 cents per user.
Wall Street loves the FB business model and would not like any change. There is no Facebook without ads. Advertisers love targeted ads.
No company in the world can offer more information about such a large number of people.
4
I can't wait until life is not all about money. Wasn't there life before money?
13
Yes, it was a life where you had to worry about being attacked constantly because the only currency was physical force.
Not really, but there was definitely life before this kind of money!
Here we go. History shows us (anybody remember cable TV's promise of no ads in exchange for a small fee) that once the Corporations are let loose, there is no way to limit their greed. Cable TV claimed that for just a few dollars a month, that they needed since they did not have advertising revenue, they would provide great shows with no commercial breaks. Look at where Cable is at now. All the channels have as many commercials as regular TV did and we get to pay around $100 a month for the service. They've even add ads at the bottom of the screen in between regularly placed ads. While I agree peoples privacy concerns must be addressed, opening the "pay" for your "rights" Internet policy is not the way to go.
10
Even if you did pay for it, they would never stop collecting your data and selling it.
9
Yes, but we can dream of a world where companies can be satisfied by a fair and profitable model without grabbing for every revenue angle, can't we?
Amen
1
"Zeynep Tufekci... invites you to... join her on Facebook."
If the author of this essay really believed what she was writing, she wouldn't be on Facebook right now. But she is. And for that reason alone, her idea will never fly.
If the author of this essay really believed what she was writing, she wouldn't be on Facebook right now. But she is. And for that reason alone, her idea will never fly.
2
I think a lot of people would readily pay $0.20/month, or even a few dollars/moonth, for Facebook not to hoard their private data and give it to advertisers. But I would guess the reason Facebook is a $100 billion company is not really because of this $0.20/month profit -- it's because of the huge database of personal info they're sitting on, the potential ways it might be used in future to increase that $0.20/month sharply, and the fact that it's constantly growing. Until another way for a social media service to maintain this market cap is found and proven, it's just not in Facebook's corporate interest to stop collecting data (particularly since people continue to give it to them).
2
Good luck with that.The entire model is built on selling data. For all of you Snowden lovers.
4
No one is forcing anyone to join Facebook.
Maybe there is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to provide a different type of service.
Maybe there is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to provide a different type of service.
6
Facebook without ads, without intrusive tracking of your friends and friends of friends (doing the FBI's and NSA's work for them), without user-assisted facial recognition turning your every photo into a mugshot gallery. Facebook that shows everything rather than an algorithm's selection of your posts. It's called a blog, sheeple. Get one. Pay for one. They are dirt cheap. Only catch: blogs won't even attract and hold your mother, let alone your sheeple "friends," if you run out of genuinely interesting things to show and tell. And, oh, blogs require you and your commenting friends actually express your likes and dislikes -- you know, use words -- not just point and click at them. Oops, back to Facebook.
4
Sometimes, the old wisdom is the best: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
There are innumerable trade-offs for free Internet content. Sometimes, we know it, because we see ads popping up here and there. Sometimes, we do not know it because people are surreptitiously tracking our every move and adding information to data bases about us that we cannot even imagine what use might be made of it.
We are just starting to learn the dark side of free Internet content. And, I do not think most of us like what we are finding out.
There are innumerable trade-offs for free Internet content. Sometimes, we know it, because we see ads popping up here and there. Sometimes, we do not know it because people are surreptitiously tracking our every move and adding information to data bases about us that we cannot even imagine what use might be made of it.
We are just starting to learn the dark side of free Internet content. And, I do not think most of us like what we are finding out.
3
Here is a hypothetical scenario about why paying facebook 20 cents probably won't be enough....
The key take away profit is .20 cents per user, not revenue, or even operating income..
Meaning conceivably, he could book 99.9999% of $20,000 revenue per customer as: $10K expenses such as free BMW leases, salon haircuts, bar, spa, 5 star cafeteria food for all employees, and then as majority shareholder put $9,999.80 of profit in his own pocket, thus leaving 20 cents "profits" for common shareholder..
The key take away profit is .20 cents per user, not revenue, or even operating income..
Meaning conceivably, he could book 99.9999% of $20,000 revenue per customer as: $10K expenses such as free BMW leases, salon haircuts, bar, spa, 5 star cafeteria food for all employees, and then as majority shareholder put $9,999.80 of profit in his own pocket, thus leaving 20 cents "profits" for common shareholder..
1
Hey Comcast - let me choose to add 30¢ a month to my bill to use a new ISP-sponsored social media site with no ads or tracking. Make it open source so we can trust it. If Facebook profits 20¢ per user then your margin will be at least 50%. Probably more; you won't have the expense of selling ads.
Nothing is free. People have forgotten that money is spent providing the services they take for granted. This gives control to surface and marketing, which has taken over from reality.
This means trouble, coming to a location near you. Pretending reality doesn't bite is unwise, particularly in the arena of exploitation and abuse on a finite planet.
This means trouble, coming to a location near you. Pretending reality doesn't bite is unwise, particularly in the arena of exploitation and abuse on a finite planet.
10
Enough with your Facebook and Twitter,
At Egos and Selfies I'm bitter,
I would like to gather
This self-involved blather,
Dispose of it, we'd all be fitter!
At Egos and Selfies I'm bitter,
I would like to gather
This self-involved blather,
Dispose of it, we'd all be fitter!
47
I've been saying this for years. A nominal fee would be far better. All the people who scream how they'd never pay for Facebook are oblivious to the costs outlined so well in this essay. Thank you!
15
Except, the fee will NOT be nominal. Why charge 20 cents a month, when you can get $20 a month?
I get my online access to the New York Times website through a print subscription that costs me roughly $800 a year. Does the New York Times (which, one has to imagine, has a slightly higher bar when it comes to ethics than either Facebook or Google) offer me the option of digital privacy when I use their online version? Of course not.
To understand modern technology is to realize that they (the corporations like Google or the government agencies like the NSA) will do it simply because they can. In other words, I have every expectation that once you need a Facebook account in order to effectively access the Internet (Zuckerberg's goal is for all commercial Internet traffic to flow through him), you will almost certainly have to pay for it.
But privacy in exchange for being forced to pay? Not a frigging chance.
To understand modern technology is to realize that they (the corporations like Google or the government agencies like the NSA) will do it simply because they can. In other words, I have every expectation that once you need a Facebook account in order to effectively access the Internet (Zuckerberg's goal is for all commercial Internet traffic to flow through him), you will almost certainly have to pay for it.
But privacy in exchange for being forced to pay? Not a frigging chance.
33
The best idea is to ignore these pointless time wasters. Ignore them and they will go away, quickly. Their power comes only form the obsession of their users. Reminds me of heroin and cocaine.
77
Quixotic.
Facebook, Google, et al aren't going to change their formulas. There's too much money involved. And there is no hope that even a liberal dominated SCOTUS would uphold any legislation restricting their "free speech."
Those very few reflective people who would ante up money, if it were even possible, should just change their own individual behaviors. And remind their kids to send them a card when they are mature enough to remember Mommy or Daddy saying: "You'll grow out of it, if you're lucky and otherwise are living a full life."
I will Google until I die. Can't live without it. Can't imagine anyone who could these days.
But somehow my life has gone on without using a Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Spotify, Twitter, or a trackable Gmail account.
These are mostly driven by vanity. If you can't control your vanity or -- dirty big secret on many of these -- personal and prurient sexual needs, don't expect Mark Zuckerberg or Marissa Meyer to help you out.
Facebook, Google, et al aren't going to change their formulas. There's too much money involved. And there is no hope that even a liberal dominated SCOTUS would uphold any legislation restricting their "free speech."
Those very few reflective people who would ante up money, if it were even possible, should just change their own individual behaviors. And remind their kids to send them a card when they are mature enough to remember Mommy or Daddy saying: "You'll grow out of it, if you're lucky and otherwise are living a full life."
I will Google until I die. Can't live without it. Can't imagine anyone who could these days.
But somehow my life has gone on without using a Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Spotify, Twitter, or a trackable Gmail account.
These are mostly driven by vanity. If you can't control your vanity or -- dirty big secret on many of these -- personal and prurient sexual needs, don't expect Mark Zuckerberg or Marissa Meyer to help you out.
23
I whole-heartedly agree with this editorial as well as Rima Regas's excellent comments and provide for your consideration a cautionary tale. Recently my six-year old Facebook account was disabled. To re-gain access, Facebook has demanded, in JPEG form, a government ID with my legal (not my social) name, a photo and my date of birth. In other words my Facebook account is being held for ransom in exchange for information that would put me at risk for identity theft or worse. Unfortunately, I've allowed Facebook to become the primary means by which I communicate with approximately 150 people. It is also the repository of six years of life events, political activity, photos, important articles, etc. Other than using a social, rather than legal, name I've not to my knowledge violated any of Facebook's long list of prohibited activities. What is chilling about this, is that on the day my account was disabled, I had engaged in a gun control debate. That discourse was civil on both sides - no profanity, no threats. Whether the NRA proponent I was debating reported me to Facebook as a means of silencing and harassment, I don't know. I do know that I draw the line at turning over information that puts me at even greater risk to Facebook. It's not worth it. At least I haven't synced other accounts, such as my NYT subscription, to Facebook. Although it's inconvenient, I urge others to maintain some semblance of independence from the Orwellian juggernaut that Facebook has become.
102
I discovered that GoDaddy does the same thing. It won't allow me to stop auto-renewal on an account I no longer want without faxing some anonymous bro-dude my driver's license or more. It's infuriating and it should be illegal.
Regardless of the purpose for keeping in touch with 150 people via Facebook, there is ALWAYS a better way, and that better way existed long before Facebook came along. It's called "e-mail". But people gravitate to FB because even after all these years, they're still baffled by how to create e-mail groups. As far as all the family stuff you lost, that's your punishment for ignoring the most backup advice. Who ever heard of using Facebook for that purpose? Answer: Nobody.
1
Don't pay any attention to the ads. I don't and never have. I ignore them totally and have never clicked on any and never will. All that "personalized advertising? It's wasted on me. It's not hard to do. What if we all did it?
15
The ad people, as targeted as they think they can be, forget one important factor. I am very low income and don't have much money......
Count me in. I value privacy a lot. In fact, I would be OK with the federal government completely taking over the internet, to make it safer and more private. I trust government a million times more than I trust corporations.
"Our payments could subsidize access in poorer countries the way ads already do." No thanks. We already subsidize poorer nations via our generous foreign aid, stupid military interventions, and "free trade". We can talk about increasing these subsidies after we find decent homes for all the homeless Americans.
"Our payments could subsidize access in poorer countries the way ads already do." No thanks. We already subsidize poorer nations via our generous foreign aid, stupid military interventions, and "free trade". We can talk about increasing these subsidies after we find decent homes for all the homeless Americans.
15
"Many people say that no significant number of users will ever pay directly for Internet services." My primary personal e-mail is with Yaholo. years ago I agreed to pay $15/year for ad-free e-mail and more storage. I'd do that for Linked In, Facebook, and especially Google search as well if it stopped the tracking and ads not only cluttering the screen but using tens of megabytes of bandwidth and tens of seconds to display a simple web page.
6
There are other search engines, such as Duck Duck Go, which do not track or profile there users. Companies and not-for-profits who put privacy first do exist, we just have to look for them.
If Facebook charged a monthly fee of $1 per user, that would give tham an extra $1,000,000,000 each month to put toward improving the product. There is also a strong divide in user activity between "civilian" users and those of us who rely on FB as a huge improvement over traditional media.
1
The insights here are so vital, and so rare even in this news source. No wonder people still don't understand the internet. Expose more, please!
4
I would pay a lot to know that I was not being tracked, that my data was not being collected. I don't use a number of social media sites for that reason and/or have the tightest privacy restrictions the site allows
4
Mark Zuckerberg would probably let you pay him, but then he'd sell your personal information out the back door rather than right in front of you.
32
Tufekci is absolutely correct. The democratic potential of the internet is enormous; more transparency, openness and more things free.
Instead of instituting an internet based on principles of democracy, it evolved predominantly on “Dollarocracy” (to evoke the title a book by Robert W. McCheseny and John Nichols).
Unfortunately the problem is not merely convincing consumers to pay; the bigger problem is massive monopoly-powered corporations wanting and jealously fighting to keep access to our information.
Let me explain.
First, the networking nature of the internet gives rise to “natural” monopolizes trough a “winner-take-all” result. Whoever builds the networking environment first or best comes to dominate, i.e. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, Facebook, etc.
Second “cookies” allow companies to track and collect extraordinary and unimaginable amounts of data. This information is highly valuable to corporations. Not simply internet monopolies, but other quasi-monopolies or very large corporations that have an enormous invested interest in this information, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America, Ford to Fox, Disney to Walmart, etc.
It is one thing to pay 20 cents or $1 per month for privacy (certainly difficult enough); the bigger problem is loosening the grip on consumer necks from massive monopoly-powered corporations. Not likely without a well-organized and publically-supported brutal political and legal fight.
Instead of instituting an internet based on principles of democracy, it evolved predominantly on “Dollarocracy” (to evoke the title a book by Robert W. McCheseny and John Nichols).
Unfortunately the problem is not merely convincing consumers to pay; the bigger problem is massive monopoly-powered corporations wanting and jealously fighting to keep access to our information.
Let me explain.
First, the networking nature of the internet gives rise to “natural” monopolizes trough a “winner-take-all” result. Whoever builds the networking environment first or best comes to dominate, i.e. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, Facebook, etc.
Second “cookies” allow companies to track and collect extraordinary and unimaginable amounts of data. This information is highly valuable to corporations. Not simply internet monopolies, but other quasi-monopolies or very large corporations that have an enormous invested interest in this information, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America, Ford to Fox, Disney to Walmart, etc.
It is one thing to pay 20 cents or $1 per month for privacy (certainly difficult enough); the bigger problem is loosening the grip on consumer necks from massive monopoly-powered corporations. Not likely without a well-organized and publically-supported brutal political and legal fight.
9
Hans, specifically with regard to cookies, I use the tools in Internet Explorer to block most cookies. Each time someone wants to put a cookie on my computer I am asked if I want to allow or block the cookie. I block most of them, and have a very long list of blocked cookies.
Yes, it is all, but impossible, to see anything but convenience as the current benefit of the Internet. It preys on our inherent entropy.
Materially, it seems that all of this new information has done nothing but improve the technology that's used to hunt and exploit the customer.
I liked it better when the customer was always right, and a lot more difficult to hunt to extinction.
Materially, it seems that all of this new information has done nothing but improve the technology that's used to hunt and exploit the customer.
I liked it better when the customer was always right, and a lot more difficult to hunt to extinction.
Simple solution to all this. Just do not use Facebook, Twitter or any of the other similar services. Use private email. Your life is simplified and your information is safe.
38
Best comment yet! Never figured out why some people take pleasure in exposing and washing (dirty or not so dirty) laundry in public. EGO? Maybe.
Phones also work remarkably well.
Thanks for writing this, especially revealing the irony - how little money is made on a per user basis. From the advertiser perspective the results are the same or worse. Viewability of ads and clickthroughs to advertisers' content are tiny.
As a media and marketing veteran, I have been arguing that the advertising business model is not viable because it doesn't benefit the advertiser or the "consumer". The only beneficiary is the VC/Hedge Fund and the few founders who still have stock.
When the tech industry does design offerings that are worth paying for, like APPLE for example, everyone wins.
As a media and marketing veteran, I have been arguing that the advertising business model is not viable because it doesn't benefit the advertiser or the "consumer". The only beneficiary is the VC/Hedge Fund and the few founders who still have stock.
When the tech industry does design offerings that are worth paying for, like APPLE for example, everyone wins.
48
Even more, Facebook is the ultimate click-bate. Beyond the company founders, I think the real money to be made from Facebook or many other "social" sites goes to hedge funds that USE the information that comes from following huge numbers of users around on the web 24/7 and making investment decisions based on those secrets. The Facebook that we are familiar with is just a smiling gateway for the silent watchers who predict the movements of rivers of "data" about trends and make tons of money. Interesting that several hedge funds in the news recently have shut their doors to clients due to poor results while the managers made huge salaries. They don't need no stinkin' clients. Why? Because they can watch the markets with good-enough algorithms and make decent bets about behavior and make decisions accordingly and the general public has no clue and gets no benefit as they jump from cat video to medical stories to bread and circuses.
I would like to see the US post office to get into the email and social media business, with all privacy protections, and no gleaning of information by private investor-researchers, and little or no advertising, so that people would have a safe alternative for ordinary communication. There would still be private companies like Facebook providing their platforms, but they should be judged as a public good not whether a very few hedge funds are able to exploit private information about everyone's passing interests.
I would like to see the US post office to get into the email and social media business, with all privacy protections, and no gleaning of information by private investor-researchers, and little or no advertising, so that people would have a safe alternative for ordinary communication. There would still be private companies like Facebook providing their platforms, but they should be judged as a public good not whether a very few hedge funds are able to exploit private information about everyone's passing interests.
Two cents plain. Old expression, or new idea? I'm getting all fizzy inside just thinking about the possibility of a user friendly site that was data-passive , and charged less than a buck a month.
I highly recommend "All You Can Pay", by Anna Bernasek and DT Mongan. This book explains how extraordinarily detailed profiles are being built and used by marketers. It's now possible to link web activities, shopping habits, financial data, and physical location data to give marketers a precise dossier on every individual. From this can be derived both buying preferences and ability to pay. At the same time, knowledge about the wholesale marketplace allows powerful retailers to force cost plus pricing onto producers and suppliers. The result will be a marketplace where the online gateways can squeeze both consumer surplus and producer surplus to create an unprecedented stream of profits. Given this bright future, why would they let you buy back your privacy for twenty cents?
27
Call me weird, but I have no interest in Facebook or Twitter, free or otherwise - I have real friends and family. Narcissism and greed are doing incredible damage to this country.
167
I think smug self-righteousness is also a big problem.
3
OK, I'll call you weird. I'm one that is not ashamed to say that I appreciate FB as much as I do my telephone or any other modern technology we have come to include in our lives. I have hundreds of FB friends and family, many of who I might never see again. It is phenomenal to be able to easily keep up with people who have been in the past or still are close to me. Yes, there is a lot of noise, but it does not overly obscure the value.
I would gladly pay $1/month.
I would gladly pay $1/month.
2
I have real friends and family, too. However, many of them are scattered all across the country due to jobs, schools, marriages, and personal choices. Before Facebook, we stayed in touch via the occasional phone call or Christmas visit. Now, many of us are in touch on a daily basis, and my relationships with my "real friends and family" are a thousand times stronger and more meaningful than they'd be without Facebook. It is a blessing for so many of us.
1
Unless I misunderstand how the system works it would seem to make little difference if one paid for Facebook or not when it comes to gathering data with an eye towards advertising. Perhaps an apples to oranges comparison, but I pay for a subscription so NYTimes.com and still there are ads that seem to be targeted at me. While the Nytimes probably has more overhead, I pay a lot more than 20 cents per month.
70
Exactly what I was thinking. What makes anyone think that paying for a site will end tracking? I pay for Amazon Prime and I get tracked there, as well as, as you said, the targeted ads I get here.
1
I agree wholeheartedly. Profit-motive being what it is, I believe that if Facebook was charging a subscription fee they could not resist the temptation to augment the bottom-line with targeted advertising as well.
I too find it annoying that my monthly digital subscription to the NY Times does not spare me from annoying pop-up ads, advertisements before videos, etc. Are you listening New York Times?
I too find it annoying that my monthly digital subscription to the NY Times does not spare me from annoying pop-up ads, advertisements before videos, etc. Are you listening New York Times?
1
Great idea but only in theory. When FB makes about 20 cents per user per month in aggregate and when we try to set that as the price we would pay it goes right on the face of evidence behavioral economists were able to gather so far.
As the writer correctly identifies the feelings of the user as FB is "free" but it is not really "free" brings the idea of what the economists call the opportunity cost. What would probably more appealing to Zuckerberg would be to create a two-tier, or three-tier, system. Just like the television industry came to realize in the 80s and this is how it worked: So-called "free" TV with an antenna; Cable channels with some ads; and Premium services like HBO, ads free but at a price. This also takes care of those users who won't give a damn about their privacy and willing to pay indirectly to Mr. Zuckerberg's reclusive enclave in Hawaii.
As the writer correctly identifies the feelings of the user as FB is "free" but it is not really "free" brings the idea of what the economists call the opportunity cost. What would probably more appealing to Zuckerberg would be to create a two-tier, or three-tier, system. Just like the television industry came to realize in the 80s and this is how it worked: So-called "free" TV with an antenna; Cable channels with some ads; and Premium services like HBO, ads free but at a price. This also takes care of those users who won't give a damn about their privacy and willing to pay indirectly to Mr. Zuckerberg's reclusive enclave in Hawaii.
2
Does Zuckerberg really think that anyone, anywhere, will ever believe that social media will indeed respect the privacy of the paying user? The NSA has more credibility than Facebook.
Until US law vests ownership of personal data directly in the consumer, entrepreneurs will always intercept, aggregate, and transfer the consumer's data. That is piracy, but in the USA it is legal.
Until US law vests ownership of personal data directly in the consumer, entrepreneurs will always intercept, aggregate, and transfer the consumer's data. That is piracy, but in the USA it is legal.
38
An interview with Mr. Zuckerberg asking his true opinions on the Patriot Act, Freedom Act and Free From Facebook Act (if at all possible)...would have been so much more informative.
And also how is his COO Cheryl doing?
All of that would have been more interesting.
And also how is his COO Cheryl doing?
All of that would have been more interesting.
2
I would happily pay $1 per month in return for not being tracked or targeted although this would eventually lead to another utility that creeps up every year. Keep things as is or create a monster? That is the question.
3
This is a good idea, but there's one big problem: those who are willing to pay are almost surely those with the most disposable income--that is, exactly the demographic ads want to target. If this group opts out, advertisers have little incentive to run ads for the remaining users.
4
I'd gladly pay for YouTube if it would allow me to block content that I believe is inappropriate for my kids. Until then, we have to wade through the muck so YouTube can keep generating page views to collect advertising.
2
Don't bet on a greedy, porcine individual like Zuckergery seeing it your way. In fact he is likely to ask of for 40 cents not 20, then stab you in the back and do what he is already doing by getting his minions to write a code to undermine what he has promised. These people cannot be trusted. Find another way to communicate. Smoke signals anyone? USPS?
10
I very rarely go on Facebook because I think it's a colossal waste of time. The idea that the genie was ever meant to be kept in the bottle is naive. Bill Gates practically gave away early PC so every office had them and constantly made upgrading the software mandatory. So he basically had a monopoly.
Facebook, Google, etc were never meant as some social network. It was always meant to make money.
Of course, their privacy is of the it out importance but not ours. Sony was appalled when they got hacked because their big stars were revealed to be big jerks. Like they're worthy of privacy and the rest of us aren't.
Facebook, Google, etc were never meant as some social network. It was always meant to make money.
Of course, their privacy is of the it out importance but not ours. Sony was appalled when they got hacked because their big stars were revealed to be big jerks. Like they're worthy of privacy and the rest of us aren't.
3
I am not concerned about Mr. Z's wealth. Facebook is a great service for many of us who can't afford cable TV or subscriptions to expensive publications. Maybe he can write it off as a donation to the American people.
1
I have a radical solution for those who object to being tracked and manipulated by Facebook. Stop using it and free up your life.
54
I too am willing to pay Google so I can curate what comes out of Googling me.
2
You don't get the business model of social media like Facebook. Like most people,you think users are customers. That's incorrect. Users are the product. The customers are the advertisers, who buy user information and targeted eyeballs for their advertisements. Once you understand that simple thing, what Facebook does makes much more sense. Their goal is to keep the eyeballs around, and extract the information to match the eyeballs to the advertisement. What they offer the user is just a tool to achieve these goals, it's not the product they sell.
68
That is exactly what she is saying - she does get it.
3
Let me get this straight: corporations monetize our personal information and the solution should be to monetize our privacy? With corporations such as Facebook and Google, people are the content and paying these corporations not to monetize us is completely illogical (i.e. monetizing something in order not to be monetized).
Taxpayers actually paid for the development of computers and the internet decades ago, but Facebook, Google, and their ilk have managed to privatize the profits from our investment. We funded the government and institutions such as MIT and after decades of research and develop they were able to create the technology that we now use and from which corporations such as Google and Facebook now profit enormously.
Rather than furthering enriching corporations such as Facebook, why not force them to pay their taxes? If anything should be monetized, it should be their use of our publicly-funded digital infrastructure.
And, incidentally, how would handing over our credit card details to Facebook or an intermediary ensure even more privacy in an era of massive data breaches by hackers (e.g. Home Depot, Target, Sony, Staples, Kmart, UPS, Neiman Marcus, JP Morgan Chase)?
Taxpayers actually paid for the development of computers and the internet decades ago, but Facebook, Google, and their ilk have managed to privatize the profits from our investment. We funded the government and institutions such as MIT and after decades of research and develop they were able to create the technology that we now use and from which corporations such as Google and Facebook now profit enormously.
Rather than furthering enriching corporations such as Facebook, why not force them to pay their taxes? If anything should be monetized, it should be their use of our publicly-funded digital infrastructure.
And, incidentally, how would handing over our credit card details to Facebook or an intermediary ensure even more privacy in an era of massive data breaches by hackers (e.g. Home Depot, Target, Sony, Staples, Kmart, UPS, Neiman Marcus, JP Morgan Chase)?
32
Wikipedia states that Mr. Zuckerberg net worth is $35,000,000,000.00 as of March 2015 and that his salary is as CEO of Facebook is $1.00 annually. How did he become so wealthy if it is so hard to make a profit at FaceBook?
I think, Mr. Zuckerberg, you're focusing on the wrong target. Frankly, when I am looking to find something I google it, then google works for me as it direct ads my way on every site I visit, including the NYT. I make my choice as I did last night from those ads for a soldering iron, something I will probably never buy again. Have I looked at any ads today? Nope, and I am not likely to either. It could be days, weeks or months before I need to google something I don't routinely buy. I won't be bothered by the ads until then, I assure you. What I do mind is that FB, google, and everyone else is turning my personal internet itinerary over to political parties, the govtt, and god only knows what other type of policing agencies, without consulting me about it. Through me, those agencies have access to everyone I communicate with and everyone they communicate with. What I mind is that my govt and it's various agencies now behave as if I'm guilty of some insidious crime simply by breathing air thus they have right of unlimited access. In the real though, I don't even speed or litter, count my change and give back what was over paid me.
No, I will not pay for FB or any other social media for the personal information they collect. Oh, I don't do Netflex either.
I think, Mr. Zuckerberg, you're focusing on the wrong target. Frankly, when I am looking to find something I google it, then google works for me as it direct ads my way on every site I visit, including the NYT. I make my choice as I did last night from those ads for a soldering iron, something I will probably never buy again. Have I looked at any ads today? Nope, and I am not likely to either. It could be days, weeks or months before I need to google something I don't routinely buy. I won't be bothered by the ads until then, I assure you. What I do mind is that FB, google, and everyone else is turning my personal internet itinerary over to political parties, the govtt, and god only knows what other type of policing agencies, without consulting me about it. Through me, those agencies have access to everyone I communicate with and everyone they communicate with. What I mind is that my govt and it's various agencies now behave as if I'm guilty of some insidious crime simply by breathing air thus they have right of unlimited access. In the real though, I don't even speed or litter, count my change and give back what was over paid me.
No, I will not pay for FB or any other social media for the personal information they collect. Oh, I don't do Netflex either.
9
I wonder if it's a bit of a misnomer to say, as in line two, ..."services we rely on"... Personally I use Google to search for information, Yahoo for mail - and that's it. Wouldn't suit everyone of course but there is a lot to be said for the simple life :)
13
If Facebook or Google were to implement some kind of fee system, we would _still_ see ads, including targeted ones. There might be a lull, but only a lull. Why? Because the drive is for more more more. Always more profit. So at some point, a price ceiling for service would be neared, and the pressure would be on to increase revenue and profits by some other means.
Worse, even if we did not see ads, Facebook, Google, and others would still vacuum up information about us and sell it. That's easy, and -- crucially -- it's near-impossible for users to observe. Ultimately, without federal oversight and regulation (real oversight and regulation, as opposed to the tokens the government has often provided), we will only have a company's word for what data it's gathering and how it's using it. As the Snowden leaks make clear, the word of businesses and government hasn't been worth much.
Privacy enjoyed a brief democratic convergence -- much like the incomes and wealth of Americans in the post-WW2 era. Now it is a commodity to be enjoyed by the elite. In large part, just like the growing inequality undermining the US, our elected officials have worked to promote the interest of elites like Mark Zuckerberg at our expense.
Worse, even if we did not see ads, Facebook, Google, and others would still vacuum up information about us and sell it. That's easy, and -- crucially -- it's near-impossible for users to observe. Ultimately, without federal oversight and regulation (real oversight and regulation, as opposed to the tokens the government has often provided), we will only have a company's word for what data it's gathering and how it's using it. As the Snowden leaks make clear, the word of businesses and government hasn't been worth much.
Privacy enjoyed a brief democratic convergence -- much like the incomes and wealth of Americans in the post-WW2 era. Now it is a commodity to be enjoyed by the elite. In large part, just like the growing inequality undermining the US, our elected officials have worked to promote the interest of elites like Mark Zuckerberg at our expense.
13
I have a better options: I never use mr. Zuckerger's site. So I keep my privacy and save 20 cents...
20
I beg to differ somewhat, as the two sided market, in this case the user base of Facebook on one side of the market, who remain the muted product, and the other side with the hordes of advertisers, would be left at the lurch, if we want to make the first side pay for the services of using Facebook. Even if we assume that a user has to pay just 20 cents per month and no advertising is needed, Facebook gets revenue neutral but the whole lot of advertisers would get into the virtual free-riding territory could upset the moral demands of the "paying" customers who now would not agree to leave their rightful space without a negotiation. The game will be far more complicated to say the least.
Jean Tirole, who got the Nobel last year on this subject, would need to step in .
Jean Tirole, who got the Nobel last year on this subject, would need to step in .
Completely agree. I don't spend much time on TV or Facebook, but when I do, I'd pay to not have to watch an ad.
2
I am guessing Ms Tufekci based on the photo us too young to remember the early 1990's days of the Internet before even AOL opened the door in I think 1994. We used dial up at speeds measured literally by the bit. Everything was new and everything was free and 'all you could eat' for the price of your ISP. That set a habit among consumers that lives to this day. Mark did not create this arrangement.
To protect your privacy, turn off those convenient cookies in your browser. Alas that will take away from the experience but that is the tool that is used to remember you. If the server does not remember you, it cannot send you targeted ads.
To protect your privacy, turn off those convenient cookies in your browser. Alas that will take away from the experience but that is the tool that is used to remember you. If the server does not remember you, it cannot send you targeted ads.
6
Actually in the early days -- I was an early adopter -- AOL and other services charged by the MINUTE. And the speeds were so slow, that was a SERIOUS problem....you could burn through $70 a month just waiting for simple pages to download. I believe initially, ISPs believed they would make all their money off people being stuck on downloading pages, and running up big minute charges. But somehow the paradigm changed very quickly and went to unlimited service for a flat fee.
So change is possible. A lot depends on what customers DEMAND.
So change is possible. A lot depends on what customers DEMAND.
1
I have a better suggestion. Stop wasting 20 hours a month on Facebook.
212
I'm not so sure about the statement that "users don't want targeted ads". Personally I would much rather receive ads that are personally targeted (and that can sometimes be useful to find products that I actually WANT to purchase), rather than annoying generic ads that are nothing more than spam, or worse.
1
If "being tracked or targeted based" on your data is worth more to Mark Zuckerberg than $1 a month, it is not hard to guess which route he will (continue) to favor. A competitor firm might offer a privacy-respecting micropayment alternative, but how could it achieve the economies of scale of a Facebook without luring away some of the many millions of social media users who have already compromised their own privacy? Looks to me like a case to me could be made for a regulated utility approach. But, it is also not hard to guess why nobody seems to be talking about that.
4
I will never use Facebook. Ever.
32
Collecting data to sell to advertisers as the main vehicle for profit is only one "evil."
The two most dangerous perpetrators, in potential, are Facebook and Google for the undue influence they have the potential of having on unsuspecting users. We found out a year ago about two experiments Facebook ran on user timelines by manipulating what came through their feeds.
In a political season where the system will be awash with cash, real cash, the potential for Facebook to take further advantage and ignore the most basic of ethics is real. With no watchdog, save for a few conscientious professors of journalism like Jay Rosen of NYU to speak out, the public is likely to be manipulated again.
While I am concerned about the creepy nature of ads that mirror web browsing I just did independently of Facebook, I am far more concerned about the ability of Facebook to manipulate an election, or to reap far greater financial gain from manipulating the placement of news items to the highest media and political bidders.
We are at a time of political peril. Money in politics isn't only the vast amounts political candidates are able to raise, but its mirror opposite: what they can buy with that money. With the FEC and other bodie pretty much de-fanged, a Supreme Court that clearly sides with moneyed plutocratic, theocratic forces, and a corporate media that is supposed to police itself, who and what is a citizen to believe?
We need regulation of social media. Citizens United must end.
The two most dangerous perpetrators, in potential, are Facebook and Google for the undue influence they have the potential of having on unsuspecting users. We found out a year ago about two experiments Facebook ran on user timelines by manipulating what came through their feeds.
In a political season where the system will be awash with cash, real cash, the potential for Facebook to take further advantage and ignore the most basic of ethics is real. With no watchdog, save for a few conscientious professors of journalism like Jay Rosen of NYU to speak out, the public is likely to be manipulated again.
While I am concerned about the creepy nature of ads that mirror web browsing I just did independently of Facebook, I am far more concerned about the ability of Facebook to manipulate an election, or to reap far greater financial gain from manipulating the placement of news items to the highest media and political bidders.
We are at a time of political peril. Money in politics isn't only the vast amounts political candidates are able to raise, but its mirror opposite: what they can buy with that money. With the FEC and other bodie pretty much de-fanged, a Supreme Court that clearly sides with moneyed plutocratic, theocratic forces, and a corporate media that is supposed to police itself, who and what is a citizen to believe?
We need regulation of social media. Citizens United must end.
277
Bill Moyers recently gave a speech: "The Challenge of Journalism Is to Survive in the Pressure Cooker of Plutocracy"
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/05/bill-moyers-the-challenge-of-journalism...
Jay Rosen, NYU professor of journalism writes on his blog at:
http://pressthink.org/
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/05/bill-moyers-the-challenge-of-journalism...
Jay Rosen, NYU professor of journalism writes on his blog at:
http://pressthink.org/
8
PS:
I should have included another important social media outlet: LinkedIn. Employers and potential employers have access to a great deal of personal information on candidates and employees through LinkedIn. The potential for long-term unemployability is immense, depending on what a user uploads to their profile. Even the degree of success or failure in securing a job, for whatever reasons, can in and of itself cause damage to one's ability to find work.
There are employers, public and private, that have demanded access to employees' user ID and passwords on Facebook.
Social media is here to stay and, while we should all think long and hard about what we post, at no time have we been so public in our activities. At the same time, at no time have we ever been asked by institutions and employers to disclose so much personal information in exchange for a job. At no time has it been so easy to pry into our lives outside of work, and for reasons that seem, at best, arbitrary.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/10/facebook-passwor...
http://www.businessinsider.com/empoyers-ask-for-facebook-password-2012-3
I should have included another important social media outlet: LinkedIn. Employers and potential employers have access to a great deal of personal information on candidates and employees through LinkedIn. The potential for long-term unemployability is immense, depending on what a user uploads to their profile. Even the degree of success or failure in securing a job, for whatever reasons, can in and of itself cause damage to one's ability to find work.
There are employers, public and private, that have demanded access to employees' user ID and passwords on Facebook.
Social media is here to stay and, while we should all think long and hard about what we post, at no time have we been so public in our activities. At the same time, at no time have we ever been asked by institutions and employers to disclose so much personal information in exchange for a job. At no time has it been so easy to pry into our lives outside of work, and for reasons that seem, at best, arbitrary.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/10/facebook-passwor...
http://www.businessinsider.com/empoyers-ask-for-facebook-password-2012-3
18
Rima--good points. I would also add a concern over the consolidation of media under a few large umbrellas. Look at what Fox or Google owns in the realm of news and social media. When a few have so much control, is it any wonder the message is less about "news" and more about the narrative the company wants to put forth or the political positions they support.
What is a citizen to believe is an excellent question. Have we entered an era when repetition (and thus the money to bombard) equals truth?
Here is a video from a Bill Moyers Special--Free Speech for Sale. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnwbgFwbCItitle Free s
What is a citizen to believe is an excellent question. Have we entered an era when repetition (and thus the money to bombard) equals truth?
Here is a video from a Bill Moyers Special--Free Speech for Sale. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnwbgFwbCItitle Free s
3
Zuckerberg believes in his and his family's privacy, security and safety but not yours. Has he not proven this again and again? You are his product, not his customer and that is his mindset. If you, his product, are not performing financially he will find ways to make you perform. This is what he does day in and day out and this will never change.
Why continue to spend 20 hours a month with such untrustworthy company? You do not rely on Facebook or Instagram. Many have left, many have never joined. Get rid of your 'social' accounts, keep the ones that are used strictly for business and see how you fare.
You will love it!