I’m not sure if this is new, but when I clicked on the /r/pics protest post link from the frontpage here, I was redirected to this: https://old.reddit.com/premium

I’m not sure if this is well-known or not that they’re pushing it now, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it, especially on old.reddit.

  • rjb@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t really understand this sentiment, I’d rather pay a subscription for a service like fb / insta / reddit than have ads and my identity sold to the highest bidder.

    Social networks are expensive to run, the idea they should be “free” is half the problem.

    Though of course the enterprises behind them make far more money through advertising and mining user data than they would through a subscription model.

    • dxxth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 years ago

      Delusional to think a paid subscription would keep them from selling your identity to the highest bidder. Even if you sued them on GDPR bases they’d gladly take that loss if you somehow won so they could keep abusing you.

      It’s just another revenue stream to make people feel better about their poor financial decisions.

      • hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        YouTube has been shown recently to be sliding ads into premium user feeds so I can only expect the same, if not worse, especially from a company so blatantly caught lying.

    • drlecompte@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      The problem is that selling your data + targeted advertising is always going to be more lucrative than a subscription model. So even if you are willing to pay a subscription, it’s usually only a matter of time before the social media company in question changes tack. Especially if they have shareholders and/or venture capital investors breathing down their necks. If you run it like Wikipedia is run, I’m pretty sure you can operate a social media company on subscriptions/donations, but as a business model that doesn’t make sense as it is not the least effort way to make the most money.

      • rjb@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yup, agree totally. Only way it can work is if the org running it is a not for profit with great transparency, which hopefully is what we will see with the likes of Lemmy etc.

        There is an argument to make that things like reddit or even Facebook (original fb, not what it is now) should be publicly owned services. They CAN provide value to society, similar to how a town hall can.

    • hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      I have no problem paying an app developer to remove ads.

      But I’m not going to pay an organisation that has just hiked it’s API prices which means it’s now going to be earning a fortune from the likes of Google/Microsoft.

      Fuck u/spez

        • ghariksforge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 years ago

          I doubt you discuss your political opinions in the supermarket.

          Paying for social media would allow companies and governments to associate every opinion on the internet with a credit card.

          • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            And even if you did discuss those opinions, the only person who would see that discussion are security guards monitoring the camera.