Facebook Finally Puts a Price on Privacy: It’s $10 a Month

If you believe Facebook will stop abusing your privacy if you pay them, I have a bridge to sell you...

Why is that a phrase? People do occasionally sell bridges.
- https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I+have+a+bridge+to+sell+you
- No. All bridges are gifted by the Bridge God. Attempts to create and then market a bridge results in mysterious death, 103% of the time.
Is it a private bridge?
Is it a nice bridge?

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…
And its not like their similar concepts at all. This journalist needs to actually read Facebook's terms of service.

Here's a tip that costs less than $10/month - if you want privacy, just don't go on Facebook!

T'ain't enough. Gotta block everything they do, everywhere on the internet.
As someone so eloquently put it: you might not have a facebook profile, but facebook has a you profile.
If you've ever seen a "share on facebook" button on another website, they've been watching you.
- Aka a shadow profile.
Agreed, but how long have people been saying if you're not paying, that you're the product and they'd rather pay for privacy? Well, here they go!
Anybody with a brain wouldn't actually trust Meta, but the idea is right at least.
- But people pay thousands for cars and still end up the product. I don't think paying guarantees privacy anymore and if anything is an outdated concept that gives people a false sense of security if they still buy into it. Data collection is the rage now.
- Except they're being tricked into believing they're paying for privacy, when they're actually paying for an ad not to be displayed. All the privacy-hostile tracking that went into selecting the ad will still take place but you're $10 worse off.

Is it just me or is this article written under the false assumption that Facebook not serving you ads is somehow the same as Facebook not collecting your data? Because just yesterday I read an article about Costco being in trouble for allowing Facebook's tracking pixel to collect their customers' HIPPA-protected medical information through their pharmacy's web interface. I can't imagine that serving ads or not serving ads is going to stop Facebook from collecting and exploiting all the personal data it possibly can. Paying to opt out of seeing ads seems like it would, at best, just make Facebook's data mining less visible.

I don’t even use Facebook. In this case, I’m not even receiving any services from them, so they should so stop spying on me. If their answer is “pay us $10/month anyway,” which it seems to be then Facebook is more of a protection racket than a legitimate business.

There's no fucking way. They'll take your $10 and still sell all your shit.

For $10/mo, you dont see ads while we track everything you do on the internet.
Whats privacy got to do with it?

"privacy"

Uninstalling that garbage is free

And of course the “expert” quoted in favor of giving everything to Facebook is a Washington DC lobbyist.

I don’t understand why everything seems to always require “both sides” in reporting. Some things should be written with an obvious slant and not try to walk it back with a BS quote from the other side.

And you'd better believe that they'll have twice-a-year price hikes, Netflix-style.

They gotta pump up those numbers, those are rookie numbers

Well, getting an extra 10$ each month sounds nice but it’s really not remotely enough to make me use Facebook.

They just need a non-sketchy way to ask you for a donation