Slashdot Mirror
Sheryl Sandberg: Users Would Have To Pay To Opt Out of Facebook Ads (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In an interview with Today airing Friday morning, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg insisted that Facebook does not sell or give away user information, but made clear that Facebook's entire model is based on being able to share user data with advertisers. If Facebook users don't like its ad-based model, the only other option would be to have users pay for the service so they could keep their data to themselves. As Sandberg told Today: "Our service depends on your data, [so] we don't have an opt-out at the highest level. That would be a paid product."
Users of facebook are the product. Don't like it, do what I did 8 years ago, and leave it
Just give Facebook a big middle finger. Or use it as a trash bin - it's good for that, as the ads go, by definition, straight to the trash bin.
For better or worse, this was the choice that consumers made back in the 1990s and early 2000s with regards to Internet services. Services gave different models, paid subscription or free with advertising, and most consumers, perhaps in ignorance of the risk (or simply not caring), chose the latter.
No Sheryl. Another alternative is to opt out of Facebook.
IMHO, it is the best option.
Kill it with fire.
#DeleteFacebook
"But, we need to do X because money."
#DeleteFacebook
"But we really don't do X."
#DeleteFacebook
Payment would actually be worse, since it would allow FB accounts to be tied to a real identity via a credit card or Paypal account.
Unless you need to pretend you are more than your real self.
Nice privacy you got here, shame if something happened to it.
What she doesn't say that you will have to continue paying for privacy in perpetuity for anything you share with FB.
They don't "sell or give away" your information, they merely "share it [sic]" ( with companies that pay them ) . See, that's clearly different. /s
... Facebook does not sell or give away user information, but made clear that Facebook's entire model is based on being able to share user data with advertisers.
And by "data" they mean "information" and by "share" they mean "sell" -- if that wasn't actually clear. So, that settles that. Thanks Sheryl.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I recommend Brave to everyone I know because it's as great blockers baked in. Works great on Facebook. I can't remember the last time I saw sidebar ads on Facebook.
dont even allow their domain to connect to your PC or laptop or mobile device, #DeleteFacebook
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I just have to install the uBlock and Facebook purity extensions.....for free.....and the ads go poof!
Really?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Seriously, Sheryl - give people the option to pay for Facebook membership and guarantee that, with a paid subscription, a user's data will not be shared with anyone and excluded from Facebook's data mining.
Feel free to price it to cover the lost per-user revenue - which I doubt is more than a few cents. Heck, charge them a buck a month and turn a profit!
If Facebook did that, I would recommend that option to everyone I know who is unwilling to quit Facebook. I won't rejoin, but people like me aren't the norm anyway.
#DeleteChrome
Realistically, how much money does FB make off of showing me, personally, ads?
How much would it cost me to submit an ad-buy, targeted specifically at me, and me only, that shows nothing but blank whitespace?
I've never used Facebook, but that's a deal that just might get me to join if I thought I could trust Facebook to honor it. Unfortunately for Facebook, I don't have that trust.
One major problem with Facebook (and other social media sites) is that they are built to be centralized. If you want to connect with someone on Facebook then you also need to be on Facebook. What we need is a decentralized social media platform built on open protocol specifications that can be implemented and reimplemented by different companies. That's how the web works. If the web had been built the way Facebook was built, you would need Facebook's special browser to view Facebook, Google's special browser to view Google sites, Amazon's special browser to view Amazon, etc. But because the web is built on open standards, I can run whatever browser I want to view their sites, whether it be Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, or any other browser that implements the standard base of HTML, CSS, and Javascript functionality. And if I decide I don't like my browser I can switch to another and still access the web. Email also works this way. Don't like your email provider? Find another one and you will still be able to communicate with your friends. Sure you'll need a new email address, but it will still work. Or if you're technically inclined, run your own email server. That's what I do and I love it. But I could never run my own Facebook server because there are no options for me to be able to do that, nor would Facebook ever allow such a thing to exist because their entire business model is based on having complete control over your data.
Having a common standard for social media would also go a long way toward eliminating the fragmentation in social media. Obligatory xkcd.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
And when will it be availble?
...Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg insisted that Facebook does not sell or give away user information, but made clear that Facebook's entire model is based on being able to share user data with advertisers...
Let me see if i understand her... Facebook does not sell or give away user information, but Fabcebook's entire business model is based upon Facebook sharing user data with advertisers. So what, exactly does Facebook get for sharing the user data from advertisers? Free pizza?
No matter what you would have been sold out for a profit so it's best to not pretend and work on approaches to mitigate what companies can use.
Came to say pretty much this. I don't trust ANY corporation, whether I'm paying them or not, to even apply good security practices to my data. I certainly don't trust them to not SELL my data - especially since they can sell it over and over again. And I really, really, really don't trust social media to not sell it, (especially Facebook), because selling other people's personal, private data is their business model.
I also suspect that, in the aggregate, corporations pay WAY more to buy data, than people will pay to buy back their privacy. And if people do start paying in large numbers, then there will be a tipping point where corporations will consider the remaining available data to be worth less money. And if people who were paying to keep their data private stop paying for some reason, (or even miss a payment or two), then all their data is suddenly up for grabs again. So I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell we'll see paid social media subscriptions. And if we do see them, we can be absolutely certain that the 'members' aren't getting what they're paying for.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I'm sure FB will stop info scraping if you pay them... just as I'm sure that Congress is 100% for the people and never would pass laws because someone donated to their campaign.
Long term, I would probably say that we are far better off with interconnected social networks. That way, someone's wall over at one social network can be seen by someone at another, but information exchange other than requests is limited.
Disclaimer: I don't use Facebook as I don't trust them and I like to maintain some sort of semblance of privacy.
I am convinced that even if they charged users to keep their information private they would still sell it . Money trumps all in their business.
They have no ethics and either does Google, LinkedIn, etc. Remember Googles original motto of Do No Evil? That went quickly by the wayside.
Sheryl is fantasizing because if users had to pay for access Facebook would soon find out its actual value and dry up and blow away.
I better start cycling to get those credits.
-Dave
FACEBOOK: "We have collected a lot of private & personal data on you, PAY US or we will share it with others!"
It boils down to exactly that: Companies will pay more for the data than individuals will pay to keep the data from being distributed.
What needs to be done is to decentralize social networks, with usable connections between others. I have a bunch of people in a local area with one interest. Someone on my social network wants to keep track of what someone else is doing on a social network in another town. This wouldn't be difficult to implement, especially with age-old protocols like NNTP, and authentication protocols like OpenID.
The Diaspora Project looks interesting, possibly.
In any case, decentralization is key.
1. Facebook has already given a massive amount of data over to advertisers already. Even if I start paying now, it's already too late.
2. Facebook keeps shadow profiles on non-users, so how exactly would a non-user pay Facebook to protect their data? They'd have to sign up for FB...
just buy more money? You realize that's what you sound like, right? Getting a new job isn't easy in most places. Especially if you're one of the millions without a college degree or if you've every had anything go wrong in your life (major illness by you or family, arrest and conviction, House burning down, etc, etc).
Telling people to just go find new work is all very bootstrappy and such, but let's not forget that the phrase "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" describes an act that is literally impossible.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it sounds dirty when I write it like that, but hey, if you're into Warhammer, D&D, etc you _will_ have a Facebook because that's where the meet ups are coordinated. Same with meet ups for computer clubs, the 3D Printer crowds, etc. Facebook took over what used to be done on usenet & bulletin board systems.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For one Facebook puts things in correct terms and makes a reasonable statement. Sandberg is spot on here: Facebook is a business and users need to pay up.
The PROBLEM is that Facebook doesn't give users this choice. If Facebook rolled out a legitimate, contractually-bound option for users to pay a set fee and in exchange undergo ABSOLUTELY NO data mining, that would be both fair and ethical.
But users are not given that choice, and until hey are, users should #DeleteFacebook
Because the advertisers don't see the individual data - just the aggregate data.
I want to advertise to left handed male Italian plumbers in Chicago and New York who have spent $500 or more a year on tools. They can tell me approximately how many people meet those demographics. That's the sharing part. From that, I get told how much my ad will cost, and I can place my ad, which will be seen by those people.
The data about the users seeing the ads has not been given or sold to the users. Just access to the web page in front of that particular sub set of users that have managed to self identify (possibly via facial recognition, group membership, the about areas etc etc) as being in that group. This gets correlated with purchaing info etc to help nail down the people you want to spam.
Haven't you heard about ADP?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
And you never click on magazine ads, or tv ads either, yet they must be considered valuable by someone, or they wouldn't spend their $$ there.
Would you like to know more? Click here...
Let me translate all the corporate speak for you.
FB:
We're an ASS, Ad Supported Site.
Our business model is collect as much data as we can about you and sell it to the advertisers.
We don't care about you, just your data.
You don't get to opt out because then we would make less money and that would hurt my quarterly bonus.
Once you give up your privacy, you lose it forever. Kind of like a Sexual Predator Registry site for the masses.
Even if you paid them, I doubt they'd actually do it.
Think about how often they change your settings without notifying you.
Sometimes they change my feed from my choice of Newest First, to Most Popular First over a half dozen times a day.
To be fair, sometimes they'll leave it alone for a bit over a week.
Either way, they should stay the F out of my settings!
We can opt out of Facebook Ads for free... by opting out of Facebook.
Anybody that knows this and still has a Facebook app on their phone deserves everything they get.
Note : I've never had a Facebook or Twitter account, and never had any online social account in my real name.
If they want me to pay to opt out, will they pay me to NOT open up accounts on variations of my name with false information. Will I get reimbursed for not tagging photos with false names ? Like the stainless steel rat said If you can't beat surveillance then overwhelm it. I wish I could make a mask of myself, and then have 2 dozen people where it around in areas with facial recognition software. It would be really cool to be at 3 airports, 2 courthouses, a public protest and several other places all simultaneously.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Never have the words "Shut up and take my money" been more appropriate.
Yet they don't offer that Ad free no data sell subscriptions service. nothing has stopped them or anyone yet its not an option or offer. and second HAHAHAHHA as if they could be trusted ....Our idea of no ads and their idea of no ads wont be the same. The weather channel program advertised no ads and off course they had plenty of ads and partner links. Advertiser pay for eyes they WILL find a loophole or just make one.
Jack of all trades,master of none
And what would be wrong with that? FIDO, and federated networks like it, was ingeniously specced and implemented. The only bane of its existence, long-distance charges, is now a thing of the past. As far as GUI vs text-only, there were already GUI implementations of BBSing such as Worldgroup (from Galacticomm, the creators of Major BBS), and the RIP protocol. Suitably updated, BBSes could lead to a renaissance.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Along with free/$0.99 apps. At the time Internet went mainstream, people were already accustomed to getting phone and TV bills with extra charges for things like long distance calls and premium services. We could charge a penny per article, $1.99/month for a social network and so on. $4.99 minimum apps could have provided an incentive to develop an app for a one time purchase without ads / in app purchases / cryptocurrency mining etc. Ad supported discount/free services could have still been available for low income customers, just like Amazon Kindles with special offers. Instead we have devalued digital contest which is increasingly valuable in favor of ads for physical trinkets which are increasingly commodity. It's more important for a consumer to watch Youtube videos that match his/her interests than decide between Diet Pepsi and Coke Zero while being held captive to sensibility of these advertisers.
It should be pointed out that recently a lot of people are doing well with Patron. So there is at least one other model that works
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
While I never had a Facebook account and do not plan on having one, I can see the paid opt-out as a valid option since they do have to make money to survive. HOWEVER, that would only make sense if it comes with some hefty guarantees, or insurance if you will. The warranty cannot be just "money back for last x months of opt-out" since that simply turns it back to "we refunded your opt-in, therefore we own your data" model. Let Facebook state what the chances of mistakenly releasing the data are, and then sell insurance premiums against it. If it's a million to one, $2 should buy people a $1M payout (and leave room for FB to profit) in an event of their information being sold, shared, given away, lost, of disseminated in other ways, whether directly or as part of statistical "anonymized" data.
I have no problem with this. If I find a social network useful, I'll be willing to pay some amount to compensate for the lost ad revenue. OTOH, just removing ads is not nearly enough. Please give me a static, time-linear friend feed containing everything I'm subscribed to unless I've explicitly told not to show it, with the ability to easily return to a specific place in the feed. Maybe even paging. Then we're talking. Depends on the price, of course.
Facebook seems to think their product has more value to me than I have value to Facebook. That's incorrect. People like me who abandon social platforms early are the ones that start chipping away at the network effects that give Facebook their entire value.
Facebook will have to remove ads and pay me to stay in order to maintain their network value.
Facebook's on its way to becoming MySpace or Google+.
Good fucking riddance.
What advertisers pay Facebook for/get from Facebook is an ad-matching service, NOT your data.
"Show my ad to 20-29 year olds in Boston who are members of the Red Sox Fan Club group. Here's the text and images".
And finally, Facebook hosts the text and ads.
Data given to advertisers: 0.
[Full Disclosure: Facebook Production Engineer 2014-2016]
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
If I could pay FB a subscription fee in return for owning my own information then I might actually start using them. Their main hurdle would be to build up the trust they would need for me to actually believe their offer was genuine.
sigs are hazardous to your health