How much would Facebook cost the user if they charged for it instead of push "targeted ads" on us? That's going to be the $64,000 question.
Apple isn't doing everything they can to charge us more, quite the opposite in fact but monetary systems aren't what they once were so costs go up. That being said Apple gives us a ridiculous amount of stuff for free from iMovie to iWork to iCloud and ALL without ads. Yes they can do it because they sell computers but how much would Facebook have to charge us to give us ad free Facebook? Then we'll see who's doing all they can to charge us more.
The arrogance of long-standing privilege when making talking points supposedly standing up for "non-millionaires".
When did this guy last live as a part of average society? Did he ever actually struggle to get by?
Is Zuckerburg really trying to appeal to the poor, and to those who would be isolated without the internet? Oh, okay. That's me. I live in social/cultural isolation and in poverty. I need the internet to find any sense of community with my species and I'm just one social security deposit away from being destitute and homeless. I've been lucky in my bad luck, but the republicans and libertarians would love to see me rot in a ditch and they might succeed in making that happen with how they're constantly slandering and sabotaging social support systems and getting people to vote against civilization.
My opinion about Facebook is the same as billionaire Cook's. I know he's an elitist (however intentional or unintentional on his part). His leadership of Apple demonstrates his elitism. Yet, I fully agree with his position on this topic. I've held this opinion since before Cook was public about his own, so it's not as if Apple has given me my opinion.
Facebook's users are Facebook's product. The moment advertising becomes the business model, the priority is anything but the comfort, privacy, and preferences of the commodity they deal in.
Saying Facebook cares about their users is not all that different from saying animal agriculture cares about its cattle.
The audacity to claim that Facebook is a tool for social networking, and for the non-elite... Everything about Facebook on the user's side is clumsy, intermittently broken, inconsistent, and just plain hostile to communication of any depth.
Clicking a "like" button (the deeper reactions near constantly broken in mobile browsers) and throwing a one-liner of commentary at people is easy (except for when that's broken, too). Put some effort into a thought by going beyond a couple sentences and the user experience is utterly abysmal.
I'm not even talking about the nightmare that is the attempt to control the overall experience, either. It's not just the constantly shifting ground of privacy settings; it's everything! Trying to find specific content is almost impossible and the content you are presented is constantly rearranging itself to better serve marketing and data mining. It is the ultimate of "you will have what we give you" elitism.
Facebook is just one [very bad] tool that can be used to keep track of long-distance friends and acquaintances. We would be better off as a civilization if Facebook were abandoned by everyone and replaced by a system that is paid by subscription (something far less than the exorbitant fees of cable TV) so that it can be built and maintained for the purpose of promoting marketing-bias-free communication, between actual people, for unencumbered social connection online.
Tim Cook is a billionaire?
No he's not. His network is probably a little over half of $billion.
Latest estimate from Time several months ago put it at closer to $650M.
How much would Facebook cost the user if they charged for it instead of push "targeted ads" on us? That's going to be the $64,000 question.
Apple isn't doing everything they can to charge us more, quite the opposite in fact but monetary systems aren't what they once were so costs go up. That being said Apple gives us a ridiculous amount of stuff for free from iMovie to iWork to iCloud and ALL without ads. Yes they can do it because they sell computers but how much would Facebook have to charge us to give us ad free Facebook? Then we'll see who's doing all they can to charge us more.
If Facebook charged businesses and individuals with very high follower counts and traffic, e.g., celebrities, who use Facebook for marketing, brand identity, and customer interaction portals the actual cost for individual "friend & family" type accounts could be quite small. Additionally, Facebook could support some sort of "compassionate pricing model" by charging individuals in low wealth and low standard of living counties very little or nothing while charging individuals in wealthy countries proportionally more. This type of pricing model would never work for physical products but it could work for a purely service based product. There are probably some pitfalls, but anything to reduce or eliminate the purely ad-based model is worth a try.
Social networks have a useful place in a worldwide connected society. We need to decouple them from the negative influences that ad-based sponsorship models exert over the participants in these social network. The internet and social networks have forever changed the world and set us on a new course. I feel that Mark Zuckerberg is personally (but not uniquely) responsible for doing everything necessary to make the changes positive. Business as usual and following the Google ad-based model isn't working for the greater good of the billions of people who are now connected through these networks. The ball is in Zuckerberg's court, so let's see how compassionate, caring, and responsible he really is. All the money in the world will never buy back his soul.
Zucker baby, nothing is free in this world. Advertisers want user data, and that's the product you provide. Users are your product and you provide "free" services to assuage your ultimate goal.
Errr... So. Zucker states that advertising allows poor people to access technology. But advertising is to sell products. How are poor people going to buy said products? Advertising on Facebook can only be made profitable where our information - class, income, health and education - can be monitored so fb can sell that info to those of us who may actually buy something.
I'm happy that Zucker has this altruistic flair, but I do wish he was as forward with his ulterior motives.
I upgraded 20+ devices, in my house from circa. 2009-2018, in 12 hours. They are all running so smooth it's disgusting! It took me 4 hours to upgrade 1 Microsoft Windows 10 laptop, which has to be done WEEAKLY!! Been doing Mac/Apple since 1984 but still... and Microsoft since 1996.••••••What if I told you only 10% of all the people on earth were able to USE a Calculator? and 90% just could NOT use a calculator. That would be a pretty crazy stat huh? What are we at? about 2/3rds of people know how to use a calculator?••••••Well guess what I don't mind 10% marketshare for Apple... you figure it out...There is a 100% clarity on people who get things DONE vs, people who stare at a spreadsheet all week and then hit print on Friday and clock out...
Errr... So. Zucker states that advertising allows poor people to access technology. But advertising is to sell products. How are poor people going to buy said products? Advertising on Facebook can only be made profitable where our information - class, income, health and education - can be monitored so fb can sell that info to those of us who may actually buy something.
I'm happy that Zucker has this altruistic flair, but I do wish he was as forward with his ulterior motives.
Begs the question how are people making money by skewing elections?
Even without CA they still allow paid trolls on the network to have 1'000's of profiles and to attempt to skew the impression of an ideas popularity. It can only really be seen as foresting corruption to do something clearly against the good of the user to gain a bit of cash in the process.
It's not about advertising, Mark. No one is complaining about that. If you want to have ads, that's annoying but hot heinous. The problem is collecting data and using it to target your customers. And, worse, sharing it or, even worse, not protecting it.
Comments
Ref: https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/27/google-reveals-higher-traffic-acquisition-payouts-supporting-claims-of-costlier-apple-search-deal
Apple isn't doing everything they can to charge us more, quite the opposite in fact but monetary systems aren't what they once were so costs go up. That being said Apple gives us a ridiculous amount of stuff for free from iMovie to iWork to iCloud and ALL without ads. Yes they can do it because they sell computers but how much would Facebook have to charge us to give us ad free Facebook? Then we'll see who's doing all they can to charge us more.
Social networks have a useful place in a worldwide connected society. We need to decouple them from the negative influences that ad-based sponsorship models exert over the participants in these social network. The internet and social networks have forever changed the world and set us on a new course. I feel that Mark Zuckerberg is personally (but not uniquely) responsible for doing everything necessary to make the changes positive. Business as usual and following the Google ad-based model isn't working for the greater good of the billions of people who are now connected through these networks. The ball is in Zuckerberg's court, so let's see how compassionate, caring, and responsible he really is. All the money in the world will never buy back his soul.
Even without CA they still allow paid trolls on the network to have 1'000's of profiles and to attempt to skew the impression of an ideas popularity. It can only really be seen as foresting corruption to do something clearly against the good of the user to gain a bit of cash in the process.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/apple-says-facebook-has-failed-on-privacy/9612352