The problem is that paying for things in and of themselves doesn't solve the problem. (This is why I hate the phrase "If something is free...)
Take operating systems for example. Does Windows cost money? Yes. Does Windows use your activity for ad targeting? Also emphatically yes. (And of course there are lots of free, open source OSes where you aren't the product.)
Or investment brokers: people love to say that Robinhood users are the product because Robinhood sells their orderflow. What people don't necessarily realize is that before Robinhood, almost all the big investment brokers charged a fee per trade and sold orderflow. Traders were the product for decades before. The only difference in Robinhood's model is they didn't charge them fees in addition to selling orderflow.
The same is true of social media: you could very well build a paid social media platform, but why would I pay for social media when my paying doesn't actually stop you from using my data in ways you aren't disclosing? I might be enticed by a simple and restrictive terms-of-service, but many companies have been caught lying in their ToS anyway.
If you want better privacy, you should instead pursue restrictive operating systems and browsers to deny bad actors the opportunity to misuse data because they will do so as long as they do have that opportunity.
This platform wouldn't show you ads though. While Microsoft only makes money on the initial sale of Windows (and yearly through the Office Suite), this platform would have a subscription model, so there would be a constant revenue stream, and not any need for advertisements.
I suppose the most important thing would be transparency for any company that tried such a thing.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The problem is that paying for things in and of themselves doesn't solve the problem. (This is why I hate the phrase "If something is free...)
Take operating systems for example. Does Windows cost money? Yes. Does Windows use your activity for ad targeting? Also emphatically yes. (And of course there are lots of free, open source OSes where you aren't the product.)
Or investment brokers: people love to say that Robinhood users are the product because Robinhood sells their orderflow. What people don't necessarily realize is that before Robinhood, almost all the big investment brokers charged a fee per trade and sold orderflow. Traders were the product for decades before. The only difference in Robinhood's model is they didn't charge them fees in addition to selling orderflow.
The same is true of social media: you could very well build a paid social media platform, but why would I pay for social media when my paying doesn't actually stop you from using my data in ways you aren't disclosing? I might be enticed by a simple and restrictive terms-of-service, but many companies have been caught lying in their ToS anyway.
If you want better privacy, you should instead pursue restrictive operating systems and browsers to deny bad actors the opportunity to misuse data because they will do so as long as they do have that opportunity.
This platform wouldn't show you ads though. While Microsoft only makes money on the initial sale of Windows (and yearly through the Office Suite), this platform would have a subscription model, so there would be a constant revenue stream, and not any need for advertisements.
I suppose the most important thing would be transparency for any company that tried such a thing.