223
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
223 points (98.3% liked)
Europe
8485 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean I would argue that the important choice - not use FB/Instagram at all - isn't an option for most people. People's lives depend on this software, a lot of people would have a really hard time connecting with friends or participating in community organizations without access to Meta's locked-in user base.
This is why the option to pay for your own privacy rights is a false choice, and why these gatekeepers need stricter regulation from the EU. These companies make billions in profits from their monopoly positions and privacy rights abuses.
Honest question:
If you feel these tools are essential and there are no other options (not sure I agree, but that seems to be the argument you were making; let me know if I am wrong), what is the alternative?
These things take money to keep the infrastructure running, pay staff, patch security vulnerabilities, and bring new features for those same communities to use. And they are also a public company, which means they have a legal responsibility to return money to shareholders.
I’m not defending Meta, I refuse to use their platforms and will not be buying any of their hardware. But if it takes money to keep the lights on (at a minimum), how does offering ads or a subscription equate to a false choice?
Those are good questions. I definitely think people should be paid for their labor and that companies should be paid for their goods and services. In most situations, I even think that they should be able to freely set their own prices, and sell ads.
However, I do not think that they should be able to use someone's personal data unless they freely consent to it, or it is a direct consequence of the type of service they are providing. Selling ad space to a third party does not count.
The other exception to this philosophy are monopolies. Monopolies have exceptional power to abuse their consumers and should have limits on their ability to price gouge, among other things. Facebook and Instagram are monopolies, and there is no alternative to the platform that they control. There are plenty of competitors, but even if a competitor like Friendica or PixelFed can out-compete Meta on features, price, and quality, it is impossible for them to compete when it comes to having a platform with 1 billion locked-in users. This applies on both a local level, a persons' friends may only be active users of Facebook, and nothing else; As well on a national level, Platforms like Mastodon have to fight an uphill battle when Meta can leverage their user base to make Threads leapfrog Mastodon.
It does not cost Meta €10-€15 a user to run FB or Instagram. Nor do they even make that much in revenue from ads, personalized or otherwise. It's pure, monopolistic, price gouging to look good to the regulators.
I pay $20/month to support Lemmy's development. I would honestly be happy to pay the same to Pixelfed. As it is right now, I will probably pay the €25 that Meta will gouge me for to preserve my privacy rights across my various Meta accounts. I have no other choice, 80% of my social life would vanish if I lost all the connections and event feeds that I have manually added to FB and Instagram.