So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now.
I block ads on Facebook web and don't have any of their mobile apps installed, so I can't imagine they're making more money from me than if I paid them to not have any ads.
They make money by being able to target ads, not just from simply showing them, so all the data they have about you, and your links to other people, and correlations that can be derived from all that, and so forth, all feed in to that earning potential.
You might not be seeing the resulting adverts, but can you say that about all your direct contacts, and all the people in groups you are linked to, and all the other people who interact with posts & events you comment on or otherwise interact with, and all the people that...?
You are still very much part of their income model by being part of the data graph - you are not breaking the system remotely as much as you think by arranging not to see adverts.
Letting people pay to not see ads would require both initial and on-going development & testing effort so you have to include that in any cost/benefit analysis of the situation too. And that design & development could be pretty complex: by making a legitimate ad skipping option available they risk creating a hacking opportunity that makes it easier for people to skip them without paying. It might also send a bad signal to the advertisers: people with more disposable income are more likely to pay to skip the adverts, because the cost will feel less to them, and people with more disposable income are usually those that the advertisers usually most want to reach.
That advertisers might want to reach me isn't especially relevant, because there's no situation under which that is a possible outcome for fb.
Who the advertisers might want to reach is relevant because FB can currently promise to do whatever is practically possible to block ad blocking. This doesn't amount to much (tricks like the extra divs littered through the word "sponsored" and so forth, to obfuscate the advert related code & markup from blocking scripts, for instance) but is better from the advertisers point of view than them admitting it is going to happen and they've given up stopping it. And again, the official ad blocking method is likely to make unofficial blocking easier - they would have to defend that to their advertising customers.
The other issue that could come up is effectively creating a two tier system, with those that can afford to pay and those that can't. Equality and privacy defenders might be all over that, and however right or wrong people think each side would be there FB are not going to want that on top of all the public scrutiny they are already getting.
Also that seems way way up since in 2017 they made only 6.18$ in Q4[1]... so who's suddenly paying so much money for our user data?
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
I cited a number that is annual and is looking at North American revenue which is an indicator of mature market potential.
One day I'm going to build this premium Facebook clone that respects user privacy!
Come on Hacker News, make it so I don't have to!
Such a system could be easily abused, however, without some kind of bulletproof third-party auditing in place.
If Google offered an ad-free, tracking-free version of all of their services (maps, gmail, search, docs, youtube, etc.) I might even consider using it.
It's too late for that, I'm afraid. Google and the others have invested billions in their ad products and made back many more billions. It wouldn't make any sense for them to offer any kind of paid opt-out.
And even if you didn't use any Google services, they already have reams of data on you based on your correspondence with anyone with a Gmail account, plus whatever data they can buy off your carrier network and your credit card provider.
Netflix etc do it with premium services etc
Gsuite?
I'd sign up for ad free FB for $2-$3 a month if it made it easy to set retention periods on my data and opt out of the collection.