Right because the money they could get from people who'd actually pay for Facebook is a small fraction, a rounding error of a fraction, of the money they get from stealing all your data and selling your psychological profile to advertisers. Parasites.

This is what newspapers learned. They thought the internet was a paradigm shift at first.

Turns out there is a group of affluent folks willing to pay for quality journalism- as it has been the case for 400 years.

You mean like museums, PBS, NPR, the military, CO2 scrubbers in power plants? There are plenty of examples of obviously-good products and services that require alternative funding mechanisms for a variety of reasons, including network effects (increasing returns to scale), inability to collect small payments, and inability to track usage. Social media has elements of all of these.

It's a well studied problem that applies to a long list of markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

Apple and its locked down appstore with fees are parasites, too.

> while making their own equivalent data collection opt-out (vs their competitors' opt-in). Even then, Apple frames their data collection option as "Personalize your experience" while forcing other apps to use the phrase "Allow this app to track you." Apple's own ads product has tripled its market share since this launched.

If that is true, Apple is an exterminator, who wants to exterminate the current residents so they can take up residence themselves.

Apple exterminated everything except their own bugs, ha.

Ah, I misread.