a) Pepsi and Coca Cola is consumed by people of all sorts so just because someone can’t afford to pay $5/mo to access fb, they’re still worth targets for all types of products.
b) Vast majority of current users won’t pay $5/mo. If 10% do (and I’d say that’s an exaggeration), then they’d need to charge $5/mo.
a) of course. I’m questioning your assumption that people don’t have choice. If people have a choice to choose between coke and Pepsi or water they should be able to choose between data and money
b) There is no way to tell. Maybe 80% would pay 50c a month. I’d say there is some middle ground between 100%/0$ and your assumption of 10%/5$.
I’m questioning your assumption that providing a choice would move the needle much in solving the real issue. The choice you’re asking for in this case seems to only offer additional privacy for those in the top X% of wage levels while pretending it is a solution to the wider problem.
If I had a billion dollars to spend building a paid version of fb versus spending that money educating everyone about the privacy controls they already have, I feel the latter would make much more of an impact than the former.
How about use of data for purposes for which there exists no informed consent with the option to refuse without excessive negative consequences?
Facebook abuses data by using it for purposes other than providing the service they offer to their users, when those users for the most part have very little to no understanding what those other uses entail, plus there isn't even an option to refuse that use without being locked out of a de-facto monopoly service that they intentionally constructed in such a way as to achieve that monopoly.
b) Vast majority of current users won’t pay $5/mo. If 10% do (and I’d say that’s an exaggeration), then they’d need to charge $5/mo.