zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
> Meta has stated that it had already announced plans to provide users in the EU and EEA with an opportunity to provide consent and will introduce a subscription model in November to comply with regulatory requirements

This effectively means then that if you are in the EU and you'd want to use either Facebook or Instagram you'd have to pay for a subscription then because they presumably won't offer the free-service without personalized ads and since the law prohibits them from doing that then the only way to use either service will be to pay for it..?

>>leksak+Z6
Exactly, and I personally don't see anything wrong with this approach. You can't offer a free service if you can't make money from it somehow.

>>starta+28
They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.

>>latexr+ra
They don't work effectively if they aren't targeted on who you are. It would be like TV ads.

Biggest example is the IOS privacy which has hit whole industry in terms of marketing effectiveness and cost.

>>adrr+9K1
Any reference proving this?

>>fsflov+2M3
FB earnings or any earnings from any company that is heavily dependent on performance marketing. And for small businesses.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/small-businesses-cou...

>>adrr+nt4
But did they compare their earning to those with non-tracking, contextual ads?