Re:I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in wi...
by melissamiranda on Friday February 17, 2012 @06:59PM
(#3605507)
Any company offering a free service has to make money somehow, and since they know 5% of internet browsing is on the Fb newsfeed, it's actually not surprising.
I wonder, would you pay a $5 subscription so that Facebook doesn't show you ads and lets you own your data? Someone else suggested it.
Re:I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in wi...
by ori_b on Friday February 17, 2012 @07:36PM
(#3605575)
I would not pay that to get rid of ads. However, ads don't bother me. The "social placement" advertising that (ab)uses my friend's content to turn them into shills is what I find a significant turnoff, combined with the other invasive and slimy methods of data collection mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I don't care if Facebook does advertising. However, the slimy methods used burn any trust I have in them, and as a result, I'm not going to hand them any extra data if I can avoid it.
Re:I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in wi...
by WettowelReactor on Friday February 17, 2012 @07:37PM
(#3605580)
I am curious why this is not a more popular option across the board. Free with AD's or pay for no ads and no tracking. I would gladly pay for some of the free services if I could get these options and wont even use them for free while the tracking is in place.
Re:I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in wi...
by carbocation on Friday February 17, 2012 @10:32PM
(#3605866)
Then you have the New York Times: pay and they still display ads.
I don't trust a company that turns my friends into shills. It's slimy.
I use facebook because it's convenient for keeping in touch with friends and keeping up to date with events. I don't like it or trust it much.