News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by lakechfoma on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @04:55PM (#16805301)
I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative.

I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on.

edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by nopriorarrests on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @06:24PM (#16806128)
>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population

Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability.

Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to enter your credit card. At all.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by adventured on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @07:32PM (#16806663)
Indeed. At the rate their monetization is likely to grow as advertising & economy (retail etc) continues to shift online, just continuing the existing growth trend and assuming a slow-down over time, it's extremely likely Facebook will reach a ~$200 per year ARPU in the US/Canada market within five years or so.

There is no large audience in any developed market willing to pay $15+ per month for Facebook just to remove ads.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by rootusrootus on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @06:41PM (#16806254)
If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends.

The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly endless money thrown at them.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by HumanDrivenDev on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @12:39AM (#16808083)
9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by rootusrootus on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @09:49AM (#16811018)
I agree. Like every other product in the world, I would base the price on what the local market supports.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would ever work, because I may value my privacy at more than a few bucks a month, but it's a near certainty that the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. They don't see the cost there, so they ignore it. By the time they ever realize what it was they gave up and for how little, it's too late.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by SmellyGeekBoy on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @04:46AM (#16809193)
Especially when the alternative is "free"
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by jimmy1 on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @11:19PM (#16807771)
> The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model.

But you just said you just need your family and some friends. That doesn't sound like critical mass is needed. Just convince your family and some friends to join with you, and enjoy the service together. Then your friends can invite their friends and family, and so on and so forth.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by home_boi on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @11:19PM (#16807773)
Technically users are entering their credit card information somewhere down the line after an ad click, many times on a website "shadier" than Facebook because sane advertisers make more money than they spend.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by lakechfoma on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @09:52AM (#16811042)
I wonder two things though. 1) would their operating costs be lower if their infrastructure wasn't designed around this user tracking and advertising model? 2) regardless of the answer to number #1 but especially if that answer is yes, do they _need_ an ARPU of $27 to get by? Could they survive on $10? (of course I recognize not everyone can pay that, it's a privilege etc)

Yeah I understand the goal of capitalist companies is to endlessly print more money for the shareholders and the promise of ever better advertising enables FB to keep pulling in the dough. But maybe something like social media shouldn't operate in that context.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by 18pfsmt on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @06:15PM (#16806038)
None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by lakechfoma on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @10:00AM (#16811119)
It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress.

Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by dragonwriter on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @10:04AM (#16811163)
> There should be a panel of non-partisan people

And right there is where your plan fails.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by lakechfoma on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @11:28AM (#16812109)
I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by 18pfsmt on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @06:58PM (#16816538)
I really liked your first post and building a platform to enable such things is completely simple. Please don't take the cynical/self-defeating attitude. Promotion is not my strong suit. Be careful with people that want to be the watchers of the watchers without laying out clear principles ahead of time.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by ovao on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @10:12PM (#16807515)
What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm
Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by thedirt0115 on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @06:56PM (#16806379)
> can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? ... [some users] subsidize [others].

Absolutely! Github, Dropbox, etc, that's how tons of "freemium" companies work.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress by dingaling on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @06:26PM (#16806148)
> Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population

That's how WhatsApp started to fund itself, I remember there being a nominal annual charge ( £1 ) for some users but not for all. There didn't seem to be any obvious rule as to who was pinged to pay-up, perhaps it really was random.

But that was discontinued after they were acquired.