• UrLogicFails@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    A couple of key highlights:

    The proposal is a gambit by Meta to navigate European Union rules that threaten to restrict its ability to show users personalized ads without first seeking user consent—jeopardizing its main source of revenue.

    It would give users the choice between continuing to access Instagram and Facebook free with personalized ads, or paying for versions of the services without any ads, people familiar with the proposal said.

    Under the plan, Meta has told regulators it would charge users roughly €10 a month, equivalent to about $10.50, on desktop on a Facebook or Instagram account, and roughly €6 for each additional linked account, the people said. On mobile devices the price would jump to roughly €13 a month because Meta would factor in commissions charged by Apple’s and Google’s app stores on in-app payments.

    Privacy-conscious users in the U.S. shouldn’t expect to be offered the option to pay for ad-free Instagram or Facebook soon. Meta’s proposals have been pitched specifically as a way to navigate demands by EU regulators to seek consent before crunching user data to select highly personalized ads.

    It isn’t clear if regulators in Ireland or Brussels will deem the new plan compliant with EU laws, or whether they will insist Meta offer cheaper or even free versions with ads that aren’t personalized based on a user’s digital activity.

    This feels like Meta is just attempting to play at Malicious Compliance. There's no way they make that much off each user per month, this feels like they are intentionally making it cost-prohibitive to have the ad-free version just so they can say they are meeting EU regulations. I certainly cannot see many users shelling out ~€17 a month for Instagram and Facebook.

    As noted, though, this may not be enough to pass the EU regulations.

    • macallik@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree re: malicious compliance. Also leading w/ the web price knowing that the majority of their base uses mobile devices to connect

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      this feels like they are intentionally making it cost-prohibitive

      Like I mentioned in another comment - To me it seems like it's priced relative to the market. YouTube's premium membership is $15, but you can do a lot more on Facebook compared to YouTube (not just videos but also wall posts, messaging, photos, groups, events, dating, birthday reminders, etc) and their costs would be similar to Google in terms of data centers, servers, employees, etc.