Just cuz they don't show ads doesn't means inferences and analysis isn't done on all your data and used as fodder for other bullshit that doesn't care about your interests or welfare.
The notion of not seeing ads actually does kinda worry me because at least when you see an ad, you get a visual confirmation you are being monitored and parsed. I don't know that's a conversation anyone has or is prepared to address.
Not so long ago we learned Google's toggle to turn off your history turned off your ability to see your history, not Google's collection of it, so you're right to be skeptical:
That document goes on to state: "Contrary to Mr Pichai's Congressional testimony, the founder of Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office testified in this case that he is 'not aware of any setting' that users can employ to prevent Google from collecting data related to their app activity."
Much of the issue, allegedly, is that WAA, rather than saving data when on and not saving it when off, simply saves data in a different place – not in the Google Account data set. Addressing the confusion about the bounds of Google Accounts, Hochman said, "So I'm aware that Google may save data in different locations, depending on where that WAA/sWAA switch is set. It is still collecting the same data and still saving it, but it may save it in different places."
Well, what a fucking relief! Although they should give a user tbe option of deciding where their data sentinel abuse material is stored and with whom it is still shared?
Also this is Facebook's most entertaining con as of late. I just can't hate and not laugh at everything they do at the same time. They yield meh a lot of joy dividends from muh admittedly substantial hate investment which has long since vested
Edit: [Not crazy about some of the sentence structure here but you know what I mean]
I was going to say I'd pay $1 a month for both but my use of social media services really doesn't warrant spending money on them, and since I started reporting all of their ads as scams I see to get less adverts anyway.
The immediate catalyst was the EU, but this is likely what Apple wanted all along by launching ATT and running all its PR about privacy. Users pay instead of advertisers, and Apple gets its 30%.
I don't use Facebook or Instagram but this seems expensive. Do people extract so much value from these apps?
I pay for Youtube premium which has a similar cost but it's for the whole family and the video ads are significantly more annoying. Maybe Meta is planning on making ads more intrusive?
This move looks like it's a preemptive one to head off complaints from the EU. I doubt they will have many takers at this price. It might actually be intentionally high to keep the majority on the ad-ridden default version.
The notion of not seeing ads actually does kinda worry me because at least when you see an ad, you get a visual confirmation you are being monitored and parsed. I don't know that's a conversation anyone has or is prepared to address.