Even better ending their exploitative ad model business would promote the use of decentralized social network solutions.

If people couldn't easily monetize the platform the way Facebook does it opens up the market for diverse platforms. Monetizing email service is notoriously difficult and Gmails lack of in-app advertising sets a playing field nobody else can exploit for massive growth. That has probably in large part been what has kept IMAP alive while XMPP and other open communication protocols died - the ubiquity and lack of ability to dilute the user experience with ads for profit keeps predatory competition out. That hasn't stopped Google from doing some seedy shit in recent years with their position but even they have to be conservative on radical anti-user behavior that would drive their base off Gmail - because their userbase can leave. Its the beauty of decentralization.

"try to charge" , and "survive only on ads" are not mutually exclusive. FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise, with FB costing the average person $40/year, which is in some places on earth the entire year's income. I also assume FB doesn't offer the option because it's too much work to filter all the tracking in and out of their properties.

> FB could charge for ads-free, but nobody would use it. It's delusional assume otherwise

It seems more delusional to predict the future (nobody would use it) with confidence.

I know framing such things as false dichotomies is kinda what educated Western intellectuals do, but God or nature impose no such limitations on us. We are free to think, negotiate, create hybrid solutions and adjust as necessary, and so forth and so on. We have the ability to largely be the masters of our own destiny, but waking up and making that choice is our responsibility, not God's.

"nobody" is a figure of speech of course. It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%

Then the ultimate valuation of FB is 5%, or a little less, of current. That's perfectly fine. They would have found an appropriate level in the marketplace.

hmm the ultimate valuation is exactly the same, perhaps a bit higher because of the lowered negative press?

Hmm, that would be ironic, FB ending up being worth more by suddenly getting some ethics. :)

> "nobody" is a figure of speech of course.

Ok then, can you restate your prediction of the future without the use of figures of speech? Calling people delusional who disagree with an utterly vague warning seems a bit inappropriate.

> It's easy to settle the question with a poll: ask people worldwide if you 'd pay $40/year for FB. My bet would be it's < 5%

I like this much better, as it is no longer suggestive that certain approaches cannot be done for certain reasons, and instead only poses a perfectly valid question with an explicitly speculative bet about what the answer would be. Fantastic.