I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in wi... by drcube on Saturday February 18, 2012 @10:30AM (#3606756)

And real newspapers. And magazines, cable tv, movies, etc...

[ Parent | on HN ]