this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
506 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59271 readers
4188 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (5 children)

On meta’s while it is flagrant screw you, they may have a valid argument. Human beings don’t actually need any kind of social media to survive, ergo it is a convenience or luxury that could be charged for.

I’m certainly not agreeing with them, but they may be banking on that style argument and their ungodly amount of money to fight it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

To some people in some places Facebook is actually necessary in order to have a social life or run a business.

We all know Facebook would die if it charged for access, because it would lose its ubiquity that makes it necessary for some people.

What would actually be good is if instead of charging for privacy, they charged for enhanced features - similar to how discord charges for Nitro (I am not defending discord, just using their payment model as an example)

The problem with that payment model though is then you have to actually develop features people want to pay for. And we all know Facebook is creatively bankrupt.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

You absolutely can charge for social media, just not the way Facebook does. They're not charging for the service, just for not spying on you, which is illegal under GDPR.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Really the regulation should be about requiring social media companies to interoperate similar to regulation on the phone companies. You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.

Then is if the social media companies want to charge money people could change to another platform without losing their contacts.

Basically the only reason I still have facebook is to talk to chat with people on there that I can't contact through other means.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

You should be able to switch to another social media platform without losing your ability to communicate with your friends on the old platform similar to how you can still call your friends after you change phone companies.

Boy have I got some news for you about something called "the fediverse...."

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes. But we have all gotten pretty used to things on the Internet not costing money. If they start costing money, many people will either not want to or be able to use them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Right. But if things do start to cost money, should that be stopped by laws?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

Where they lose totally though is the off service data harvesting that isn’t even remotely “implied okay”