My Take: Meta Playing Evil Not to Lose Its “Precious”

You might have guessed that, being the person behind the hashtag #NoConsentNoTracking, this situation really bothers me. Is offering users a choice between a free, ad-supported experience or a paid, ad-free one really a choice? Or is it more a ploy to get the EU legal authorities into a battle of the giants?

Before we dive in, let's consider Netflix and Spotify, which also offer a subscription service alongside a cheaper (free in the case of Spotify), ad-supported version.

Netflix's privacy policy, regardless of the chosen plan, is straightforward. They collect extensive data on user behavior, including interactions with data brokers and social media activity. This collection is consistent across both regular and ad-supported plans.

Netflix collects and use your data regardless of your plan.

Spotify is pretty much the same, and even closer to the model Facebook wants to implement. It even says, clearly, "For other marketing, promotion, and advertising purposes where the law does not require consent. For example, when we use your personal data to tailor advertising to your interests." (I find this statement pretty odd!) But my understanding is that Spotify collects and uses data for marketing purposes even if your subscription is not the ad-supported one. We shouldn't be surprised about this, and it is far from being exceptional.

Spotify collects and use data for marketing purposes even if your subscription is not the ad-supported one.

Let's Turn Back to Facebook

Turning our attention back to Facebook, questions arise: Does subscribing to Facebook guarantee no data collection, or merely an ad-free experience? The answer remains unclear, but it's doubtful that Facebook would completely relinquish data collection and lose their "precious", essential for their feed algorithm, even if not for advertising purposes.

That is, they might not collect and use data for advertising purposes, which clearly requires consent, as ruled by the court, but it's doubtful that Facebook would completely relinquish data collection and lose their "precious", essential for their feed algorithm, which falls under a different legal basis.

So, does my comparison with Netflix hold water? I'm curious to read what you think:

• Facebook's data, rooted in social interactions, carries greater sensitivity compared to Netflix's or Spotify's content consumption data.
• The transition from a subscription model to include advertising, as Netflix has done, is relatively straightforward. In the case of Spotify, the option between free-ad-sponsored vs paid-no-ads has been a choice for many years, if not from the onset. Conversely, shifting from an ad-supported to a subscription-based model, as Facebook proposes, is more complex and laden with privacy concerns.
• On the other hand, Meta is a private business, not a public service. You don't have to use it. And if there had been a subscription from the start, even with advertising and all the abuses we know about, I have the feeling there wouldn't even be a discussion.

In courses on the fundamentals of marketing, we learn very early on that "price" is the most difficult element of the 4Ps of marketing to get right, and even more difficult to change afterward...

So, Pay or Okay?

Nyob makes valid points:

• The model challenges the notion of freely given consent, as users are effectively coerced into consenting to tracking to avoid paying a fee. We could argue Meta is in an undue position of power given the legacy of information users have created over time. This undermines the principle that consent to online tracking and personalized advertising should be a genuine choice.
• The high fee (up to €251.88 per year) - Wired reported it as "Facebook finally puts a price on privacy: it's $10 a month" - for opting out of data tracking makes privacy a costly affair, which goes against the idea that data protection should be a fundamental right accessible to all, not just those who can afford it. In a market where many services are moving towards subscription models, consumers might be reluctant to add another recurring payment.
• Such a pricing strategy could exacerbate the digital divide, increasing the risks of poverty or social exclusion. Between a good meal and social media, how many people will opt for the pseudo-social interactions and illusory world offered by Facebook, Instagram or TikTok?
• If Meta’s model is successful, it might encourage other app providers to adopt similar practices, making online privacy increasingly unaffordable. This domino effect could lead to a scenario where only the wealthy can afford privacy, which is contrary to the principles of equal rights and non-discrimination.
• Meta's approach is viewed as an attempt to circumvent EU privacy laws, with the European Court of Justice ruling that Meta’s handling of user data for personalized ads was illegal. Meta has the deep pockets to challenge the existing data protection regulations. This strategy could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other companies to follow suit, potentially undermining the essence of data protection laws.

What's the Value of Your Privacy?

Is it €251.88 per year or $10 a month?

This is ridiculous! This is just a little tiny bit of what your data is really worth to Meta.

AnthologyAI , a New-York based data intelligence startup I'm involved with, has taken upon the challenge of user control by placing end users at the center of a data exchange with a two-sided platform. This model emphasizes transparency, consent, and control. At one side sits an app that allows consumers to automatically pull in personal activity data from Amazon, Netflix, Uber, Spotify, their bank and many other sources. They then opt-in to monetize some or all of that information in various privacy-centered ways, creating a safe passive income stream. Depending on your connected data, the value might be between $5 (low range) and $50 per month, maybe even higher.

The other side is an enterprise-facing intelligence suite called CadenOS. It gives businesses access to the data directly consented to and monetized by consumers. The possibilities are endless - be it aggregated analytics, new powerful advertising capabilities, or training data for AI models.

What is the value of our privacy? Is it a mere €251.88 per year, or is there more at stake?

Personally, I'm already using Brave and AdGuard , so I don't see ads on Facebook... and it's cheaper than €251.88 a year...

Paying Meta to protect your privacy is like asking Sauron to guard the Elven Rings of Power without using them for domination.

If I had to pay Meta to "protect" my privacy, I would simply leave, as I did for Twitter - the value of the service wouldn't be there anymore.

What about you? Will you pay Meta just so you don't see ads, knowing that they will continue to happily collect data to "serve you better?"