Privacy? What is this article talking about. Ads not displaying in no way implies privacy. They will harvest your data as much as it possibly can either way. All you are doing by paying to remove ads is directly funding the ad business model.
The article confuses privacy and ads-free. As in, you pay $10 a month not to see what the data they collect on you would be used for if you didn’t pay. But they still collect data on you and monetize it in many other ways.
What annoys me most about that kind of logic is that the reverse could also be true - they could potentially run ads like on TV without directly profiling users or violating privacy. But by marrying the concept of ads and tracking, they can play the “but we need to pay for our services somehow” card.
Privacy? What is this article talking about. Ads not displaying in no way implies privacy. They will harvest your data as much as it possibly can either way. All you are doing by paying to remove ads is directly funding the ad business model.
Exactly this!
The article confuses privacy and ads-free. As in, you pay $10 a month not to see what the data they collect on you would be used for if you didn’t pay. But they still collect data on you and monetize it in many other ways.
And if you think this is the final price, I’d like to buy a bridge from you…
What annoys me most about that kind of logic is that the reverse could also be true - they could potentially run ads like on TV without directly profiling users or violating privacy. But by marrying the concept of ads and tracking, they can play the “but we need to pay for our services somehow” card.
And its not like their similar concepts at all. This journalist needs to actually read Facebook’s terms of service.