Would you pay to access a social media site?

[mjr]

If it meant your data was more secure, would you pay a small monthly fee to access a social media site?

[morgana]

It might also depend on the site. (I was willing to subscribe to this site, for example, but I wouldn't for Facebook.)

[Pixelated]

It might also depend on the site. (I was willing to subscribe to this site, for example, but I wouldn't for Facebook.)

Hmmm ... my initial reaction was "Not a chance in hell" but you raise a good point there, morgana.

mjr: Again, it would depend on the site. For Facebook ... nope, not for any reason. I like flipping through FB but I could live without it (after the initial withdrawal symptoms, of course )

[mjr]

Ok, maybe this will help. Thanks for the replies and votes, everyone.

What if it were like a "stripped down" version of FaceBook?

Or a "social media" site (but not a "forum" like this one).

[Seanette]

Needed an option for "depends on how much I get out of it". I do pay a few dollars a month to a website with an interesting community of Disqus commenters. Might consider a small amount for FB to stay in touch with far-flung family/friends.

To me, it boils down to whether I feel I get enough benefit, such as entertainment, to be worth what I would spend.

[Blue Ginger]

If it was to remain active here, I would. For Facebook? Possibly not. It would depend on a few things such as it being ad free, better data protection, easier to report (and have them act on) abusive behaviour and easier to block people from creating fake profiles to keep harassing you.

Facebook is the only social media that I have. I hate being contactable at the best of times. I only have Facebook because it is easier to keep up with people without having to send a million emails around the world.

[Arcus]

I hate almost all social media. Because of that, I wouldn't be willing to pay for them. A forum like this I would be willing to kick in a few bucks if I knew they needed it to keep it running. That is the most I would do.

[protege]

Depends on how the site is structured. That is, if the "pay" version still had ads all over the place, and I couldn't turn off my pop-up blocker. There's a reason I have that on...and it's not because I don't want the "improved content" on sites

[mjr]

That is, if the "pay" version still had ads all over the place"

It wouldn't.

and I couldn't turn off my pop-up blocker. There's a reason I have that on...and it's not because I don't want the "improved content" on sites

You absolutely could on your popup blocker.

How much of a difference would that make? And I'm not talking about much here, between $1 and $5 per month.

[notalwaysright]

I said I don't know, because my definition of "social media" is different from the official definition. This forum is technically social media, according to Websters:

forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)

But I don't consider it social media as known to most people. It's not like Facebook, which wiggles its way into as much of your information as possible. Here I can be as anonymous as I want. So, would I pay $1 or so for this site? Yes. For most or all other social media? Absolutely not. I have no interest in giving personal information out to social media, secured or not.

[Mental_Mouse]

The thing is, FB and their kin have normalized the idea that they get to attach advertisements to your conversations and other content, and you don't get to do anything about it. Remember, "if you're not paying for a service, you're not the customer, you're the product". And more, Facebook has developed ways to lean on people, like demanding membership before you can comment on any number of their most popular pages. Not being a member, I don't know exactly how they pressure people to limit a forum to FB members, but I'm quite sure they do have ways to do so.

If you are paying, that sets up reciprocal obligations, like a real community. Now, the "owner" of a forum like this one is intrinsically a despot -- the technology supports their power. But if they abuse that power, people can walk away. If the people are financially supporting the site, then when they walk away, and the owner goes from making a profit (or at least covering costs) to losing their shirt. But a social media site isn't supported by the members, it's supported by the advertisers. And more members are easy to come by.

[dendawg]

Upgrade to CS gold™ for my answer.

[mjr]

So, would I pay $1 or so for this site? Yes. For most or all other social media? Absolutely not. I have no interest in giving personal information out to social media, secured or not.

So I get what you're saying. But this is a "discussion forum" style site. If there was something that was more "Facebook" style (let's call it Facebook light), but you could remain anonymous like you are here, would you pay for that?

Of course, there are obstacles there, too. You don't really want kids on the site (i.e. under 13), and those kinds of things, but I get the anonymous aspect.