The difference is that TV shows and video games are clearly entertainment, so you know what to expect. It’s possible for a fictional TV show or video game to manipulate you, but it’s harder because you know what you’re experiencing isn’t real.

Social media is more dangerous because it can warp your perception of reality: what is happening in the world, what people think and care about in your neighborhood and your country; what is a scientific fact and what is up for debate; which politician is trustworthy and which isn’t. There is no boundary to what aspect of your life Facebook or Google can manipulate. With an ad business model, they are incentivized to expand the scope of manipulation further and further, since their ability to influence you is literally what they sell.

I agree. The question is, if Facebook relied on paid subscriptions instead of ads, would they have designed their algorithm differently?

I think they'd still optimize for engagement / time spent on site.

Maybe. I suspect they'd optimize for renewals and new subscriptions so the goal wouldn't be how to get ad clicks and ad views.

That’s why I originally brought up Netflix, even though their domain is very different than Facebook. Netflix seems to have decided that the best way to optimize for renewals is to get subscribers to spend more time on the service overall. Which isn’t unlike Facebook et al doing the same for ad views.

Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless.

So instead of our parents being lobotomized by QAnon, they would still be inviting us to their Zynga farm game so they can unlock the pumpkin patch extension. Still scammy but less destructive to democratic institutions and free will as we know it.

The ad business model is not just about selling engagement, it’s about creating an ecosystem enabling the worst players to make the most money, while the platforms at the center keep their hands clean. Google started this tradition with malware search bars and shady affiliates; Facebook and Youtube just took it to the next level. None of that shit is profitable with subscriptions.

> Sure but they would not be infested with conspiracy theories and fake accounts because those would be worthless.

Why? How are those conspiracy theories connected to advertising?

They're not worthless insofar as they cause users to spend more time on Facebook. And Facebook would want to optimize for time spent on their site regardless of whether it was to keep users paying or to show them more ads.

Conspiracy theories emerge from the complicated and low-quality ecosystem that is required to monetize free content with ads. If people pay you a subscription, you don’t need to incentivize scammers to produce content that enrages people so they can see a viagra ad. Instead you can do what Apple and Netflix do: pay content creators for quality content, and compete on quality.

Is there a market for $5/month all-you-can-eat documentaries about lizards who secretly run the world and lay their eggs in vaccines? Sure, but it won’t be a $300B company capable of destabilizing entire countries.

The quote "If you do not pay, you are the product" implied that if you pay, you are not the product. That is, a profile won't be built around you to be tracked and manipulated.

Today it's more like "You are the product, whether you pay or not".

> The quote "If you do not pay, you are the product" implied that if you pay, you are not the product

Such a contraposition isn't necessarily true. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

Well if you want to get pedantic then "if you pay, you are not the product" is the inverse, not the contraposition. The contraposition is "if you are not the product, then you pay".

(Finally, the philosophy classes I took at university can be used for something)

The settling of the US involved the creation of many, many small town newspapers. These weren't created at random but created by the most influential families of the towns, to sell the town itself and the maintain the influence of the family. Radio and TV were free like website from the start, of course (with paid cable coming much later). High end magazines survived the rise of TV and radio because their audience was higher quality.

So the audience has been the product for a long, long time and paying or not paying made little difference.

I think the underlying challenge here might be that the most "successful" businesses often make us the most addicted. I'm curious how many of the very large companies, if any, don't rely on a business model of (borderline) addiction to their products.