People pay to remove ads from YouTube, Netflix, Amazon etc.
The point wouldn’t be to put people off, you can still push the platform to the masses as “free”. It’s just that once you’re there if you find the ads annoying or you don’t want your feed algo’d to death, then it has a “remove ads” paid option that currently platforms all lack…
Really? Jeez. Last I heard, evidently incorrectly, was a few dollars at best. That explains their ghoulishness somewhat.
Even so, Facebook brings in enormous profit. Evidently a result of maximizing whatever they can get away with
I’m wondering what the costs are to cover just hosting / content delivery.
Ie, is it feasible at some point that a not-for-profit social platform comes about. Or a for profit one that promotes itself as ethical and subsequently charges premium users based on running costs + moderate profit rather than pushing every kind of manipulative behaviour it can get away with just to maximise ad value.
It’s certainly possible. If we the people cared enough about the impact of social media on society we would demand funding from our government, if only in the form of a grant or similar.
I’m wondering how long it’ll be till social media is basically a ‘solved problem’. As in, there becomes available a foss clone of Facebook (or whatever) that’s close enough to be useable and enjoyable. If such a thing were set up with ads design need to cover costs not maximise profit (and therefore there aren’t as many) or with a reasonable priced ad free tier that covers costs and only a modest profit then would people possibly be attracted to such an “ethical” offering?
People pay to remove ads from YouTube, Netflix, Amazon etc.
The point wouldn’t be to put people off, you can still push the platform to the masses as “free”. It’s just that once you’re there if you find the ads annoying or you don’t want your feed algo’d to death, then it has a “remove ads” paid option that currently platforms all lack…
Facebook makes ~$68/user/month. No one is going to pay anything close to that to remove ads.
Not sure where you got that number from, but it’s way off. Average revenue per person is $12.29 per quarter (https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2024/q3/Earnings-Presentation-Q3-2024.pdf slide 11)
Really? Jeez. Last I heard, evidently incorrectly, was a few dollars at best. That explains their ghoulishness somewhat.
Even so, Facebook brings in enormous profit. Evidently a result of maximizing whatever they can get away with
I’m wondering what the costs are to cover just hosting / content delivery.
Ie, is it feasible at some point that a not-for-profit social platform comes about. Or a for profit one that promotes itself as ethical and subsequently charges premium users based on running costs + moderate profit rather than pushing every kind of manipulative behaviour it can get away with just to maximise ad value.
It’s certainly possible. If we the people cared enough about the impact of social media on society we would demand funding from our government, if only in the form of a grant or similar.
I’m wondering how long it’ll be till social media is basically a ‘solved problem’. As in, there becomes available a foss clone of Facebook (or whatever) that’s close enough to be useable and enjoyable. If such a thing were set up with ads design need to cover costs not maximise profit (and therefore there aren’t as many) or with a reasonable priced ad free tier that covers costs and only a modest profit then would people possibly be attracted to such an “ethical” offering?