You could run a social media platform instead as a service for users funded by donations, in the vein of Wikipedia. This way you don't need to convince most people to pay. You only need a small passionate few who keep the service going for everyone else. I think the business model would generally incentivize much more user-friendly operational decisions than an ad-sponsored approach does. And since this is a digital service, the operational cost can be scaled proportionally to the donations received.
Not exactly. While it is possible to become a Guardian 'supporter', and contribute financially in exchange for ad-free browsing after you identify yourself by logging in, you are not free from tracking by third-party ad companies as you browse their site.
The parent comment you are responding to said "I think the business model would generally incentivize much more user-friendly operational decisions than an ad-sponsored approach does." and while this gives you a superficially cleaner browsing experience, ad companies continue to track you as you browse the Guardian's website, harvesting data which can be used to manipulate you elsewhere on the web.
The Guardian could choose to disable all third-party trackers for logged-in paying supporters, but they do not. For privacy conscious readers, the only way to achieve what you want is to install an ad-blocker and a browser extension such as Privacy Badger. Contributing to the paper provides little or no privacy benefit, though it's always a good idea to support quality journalism, so if you do it, do it for that reason alone.
Be sure to include your subscriber/membership number in that email, which you can find in your profile https://profile.theguardian.com/
Perhaps it's a return to tried and tested model rather than a switch to a new one?
I believe Facebook is overvalued, but comparison to the value of a dog park is not exactly fair either.
What I was trying to convey was that a social network doesn't necessarily need to move the mountains of money that Facebook does. Diaspora* is an example of a free open source social network platform. Of course it still cost people a lot of time and money to build and host it, but nowhere near Facebook levels.
I also think the business model of running specifically a social network as a profitable business is likely to lead to "perverse incentives". Making a profit isn't necessarily opposed to helping people connect (e.g. OKCupid's business model of being free to all but selling advantages to power users), but it takes both the willingness to align your business model with your users' interests and the fortitude to stick to that approach even though other approaches could be more profitable.
One is a great place do be if it wasn't for all piles of steaming crap left around by irresponsible users.
The other is somewhere to exercise your dog
Second is the advertising business model. There as side effects to this three-way market. In any casefb as business works because they are such a monopoly.
Third is political influence, which I think is at the centre of FB's current heat, not data security. People become presidents on FB, revolutions happen on FB. This gives extra importance to the first two.
FB had been in denial about the politics issue, I suspect they still don't fully grasp it. They're not a neutral platform. They actually built in certain biases via their "optimization" for "engagement". In any case, since people like to argue politics on FB, it's a great advertiaing platform for politics.
I think they will not like the answer to the last problem. Its either an editorial approach, recognizing their position as a publication or trying to get rid of politics.
They grasp it. They've been running research studies on elections[1], politics, and "emotional contagions"[2] since at least 2010.
[1]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-a-facebook...
[2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/06/28/facebo...
What do we use the internet for? Communication, media, business, government. Most of these work on the internet exactly how they work in the non-Internet world. The only difference is the setting.
Media? We get it for free or for a small payment, both on the net, and IRL. Commerce? We still pay for things with our credit cards, the product catalogs and stores are just digital now. Public services? I apply for a change of address online and not at the DMV's satellite office. Chatting? Group text rather than party lines.
Now, social media certainly has changed people's bubbles. They're now tighter and larger, and reinforce biases and create false information to a much greater degree. But it's not like this wasn't already happening with FOX News, and before that with newspapers and journals dedicated to fringe groups.
I think the biggest problem we face is the world becoming more convenient and insular. Rather than have to pay for a local worker to produce some good for me, it gets churned through a global trade network to squeeze its price down to pennies and exploit the people and environment of the world to do so. And I would never know it unless someone went to great lengths to tell me so. Rather than read a newspaper, we look for what drivel has been retweeted by our friends. It's just "easy" to consume harmful products and information.
So what do you do when convenience is a problem? Give up convenience?
In order for the world to change people need to be genuinely, independently, and individually upset at the behavior here. Here, I think this [1] Onion article is a good example of when satire meets reality: "American People Admit Having Facebook Data Stolen Kind Of Worth It To Watch That Little Fucker Squirm". Factor in the political aspect, and I do think that probably sums up the situation pretty well. By the political aspect, I mean to say that I think a lot of the outrage is also geared again not around the behavior itself, but who that behavior may have benefited.
The issue is that if people are not upset at the behavior itself and in a vacuum, then nothing will change. And I really don't think they are. Facebook was revealed to be literally conducting psychological experiments on users without their consent, making their feed more negative or more positive just to see what would happen, and when the next shiny news bit came along - nobody cared anymore.
That all said, I completely and absolutely hope I'm wrong. But I do not think I am.
[1] - https://www.theonion.com/american-people-admit-having-facebo...
The themes of yesterday conflict with the themes of tomorrow as society exists in a period of transition
Freire referred to it as an epoch where new themes have the chance to take over
My guess is we’ll end up in the same spot: rich elites pushing their theme of “insure my wealth and power” while the majority do the actual work
But if you read the actual article, that was only the intro/lead-in. The main point of the article is near the end:
> I think something more profound is going on here. We are getting a first taste of how difficult it is for a world in which humans and computers are intrinsically linked. Tristian’s punch line “The problem with Facebook is Facebook” hints at this. Is the problem the leadership of Facebook, the people of Facebook, the users of Facebook, the software of Facebook, the algorithms of Facebook, what people do with the data from Facebook, or something else. Just try to pull those apart and make sense of it.
> ... the big transitions are hard to see when you are in them but easy to see with the benefit of decades of hindsight. This might be that moment of transition, where there is no going back to what was before.
Brad is bringing up a question here. He's not making a claim about anything. Our world is being changed. We don't know how things are going to turn out yet.