Meta to add verification to Facebook and Insta under scheme that should avoid Twitter's Musk-stakes
- Reference: 1676878093
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/02/20/meta_to_charge_content_creators/
- Source link:
For $11.99 a month on the web, or $14.99 a month on iOS, users of both Facebook and Instagram, age 18 and older, will be able to subscribe to a service that verifies their account with a government ID. Paying punters will be rewarded with a blue badge and extra protection against imposters – plus direct access to customer support.
Blue badges will also enjoy increased visibility and reach – including prominence in search, comments and recommendations. The increased visibility will vary depending on existing audience size and post topics, [1]according to Meta's announcement.
[2]
All of which could translate into less fighting with distant relatives, and more "creator" content.
[3]
[4]
For now, businesses are not eligible for Meta Verified, although no doubt business owners as individuals are allowed. This policy could tamp down a shocking and blatant increase of corporate content and adverts – at least for the time being.
The service is to be rolled out this week in Australia and New Zealand, [5]said Zuck, who also [6]claimed the new product is about "increasing authenticity and security." Once verified, the user cannot change profile name, username, photo or date of birth without applying to Meta to do so.
[7]
Meta already offers a badge to certain users deemed "authentic and notable." Those users have been [8]promised they will experience no changes.
Responding to a commentor on his Facebook feed, Zuckerberg said Meta "already [provides] protections and some support for everyone. But verifying government IDs and providing direct access to customer support for millions or billions of people costs a significant amount of money."
"Subscription fees will cover this and will also pace how many people sign up so we'll be able to ensure quality as we scale," said the CEO and [9]John Denver afficionado .
[10]
The fanbois were out in full force to comment on the announcement, as were the critics.
"So what it comes down to is this. Using this form of social media is going to cost you … I shouldn't have to pay for the usage of this, My feed is so full of advertisements. I barely can see posts by friends due to that," commented one user.
"Enough is enough!! I'm going to Twitter, where a jpg of a blue checkmark only costs $8 a month," commented cartoonist and co-creator of [11]Cyanide and Happiness , Rob DenBleyker.
[12]I'm happy paying Twitter eight bucks a month because price isn't the same as value
[13]Unlucky for some: Meta chops 13% of global workforce
[14]Musk tells of risk of Twitter bankruptcy as tweeters trash brands
[15]Meta trims datacenter build bills by $4 billion with new 'phased' design
Meta's paid service appears designed to avoid some of the (completely predictable) messes that happened when Twitter [16]unveiled its Twitter Blue paid service.
The hasty rollout – which included providing [17]anyone with a working credit card the same symbols of approval and authenticity as actual people or businesses – immediately led to an [18]abundance of parody accounts that both confused and entertained users and sent many off to [19]explore alternative social media sites.
Twitter Blue's first incarnation also had unpleasant real-world consequences: pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly's share price dropped by 4.5 percent when an [20]impersonator tweeted that it would make inuslin free. A steady stream of hilarious yet dystopian copycat verified tweets [21]followed .
By checking IDs, Meta appears to have learned from Twitter's mistake. Whether it has learned from its own mistakes – and will properly secure verified users' IDs – is another question.
Zuckerberg's Monster is hurting from a soft advertising market and the $10 billion revenue hole Apple kicked in its bottom line with privacy enhancements to iOS.
In November Meta [22]slashed 13 percent of its workforce. It also trimmed its datacenter build bills by $4 billion, absorbing quite a few abandonment charges in the process.
On the [23]latest earnings call Zuck declared 2023 Meta's "Year of Efficiency" to rein in costs and do more with less.
Amid all those cuts and efficiency drives, Meta keeps pouring money into its nebulous metaverse division – which lost over $13.7 billion in 2022, and has offered no indication of when the bleeding will stop.
Yet even if a million users sign up for the paid program, at $12 each per month, that only adds up to $144 million a year – a drop in the $113 billion ocean that is Meta's 2022 annual revenue. ®
Get our [24]Tech Resources
[1] https://about.fb.com/news/2023/02/testing-meta-verified-to-help-creators/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y-NS0fglO2SXLhuhI@foIwAAAEw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y-NS0fglO2SXLhuhI@foIwAAAEw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y-NS0fglO2SXLhuhI@foIwAAAEw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/pfbid02979GyAHwTKsMd7ngCiHTRCHyeTCEHwYe9Evq3YV2ffvxUY7fKVb9TGyKEUFBeo3kl
[6] https://ig.me/j/AbZ19cL4AVphbig9/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y-NS0fglO2SXLhuhI@foIwAAAEw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://about.fb.com/news/2023/02/testing-meta-verified-to-help-creators/
[9] https://www.instagram.com/tv/CQ6u_nFnGmR/?hl=en
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y-NS0fglO2SXLhuhI@foIwAAAEw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://explosm.net
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/10/twitter_verified_opinion/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/09/meta_redundancies_mark_zuckerberg/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/11/musk_brands/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/02/meta_q4_2022/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/11/twitter_musk_week/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/10/twitter_verified_opinion/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/parody_twitter_accounts/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/17/twitter_refugees_matt_hancock/
[20] https://twitter.com/LillyPad/status/1590813806275469333?s=20&t=iJIaRPaUTPY530sWnYFJhw
[21] https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1590899514638229506
[22] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/09/meta_redundancies_mark_zuckerberg/
[23] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/02/meta_q4_2022/
[24] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
I think that's something my grandma does.
Verified ID?
Yeah... "new"...
Once upon a time I was trying to register at FB. I no longer have the email address, nor the (then required) cell phone number, so they can just keep that information, I care not. As I did not "friend" all of my suggestions, nor share my latest meal and its processing in all its nasty detail my account was deactivated (or put on "hold") unless I provide them with a picture of a government issued ID. Yeah. Right. Fat chance. So they can just, I think the term used here is "Zuck off".
This smells of desperation
This is going to be a big flop
I suppose people with hundreds of thousands of followers will spring for it since they will fear losing reach if they don't. But I'll bet zero of my friends do this, instead we'll all just see less of each others' posts and more of the sponsored crap that is flooding the feed more and more.
Facebook is looking like it is entering the Myspace death spiral. Myspace was true "spam", this is "real" posts but when it prevents me from seeing stuff my friends post it amounts to the same thing. I'm seeing them use "stories" more and more since that's the only way to rise above the sponsored stuff but I'm sure Zuck is figuring out a way to sabotage that as well.
And if they do a Twitter...
...by allowing the taliban to buy blue verification ticks then I'll abandon them just as I've abandoned Twitter too.
Someone is being optimistic
A quick search tells me that Meta has around three billion users as of last year, and that they had four and a half billion in income for 2022Q4 - so say, eighteen billion dollars income for three billion users, or six bucks each per year.
And they'd like users to pay twenty-four times that amount? And presumably still get the six bucks from advertisers (because a billion here, a billion there...)
And in the meantime, require said users to submit copies of government provided ID? Can we say 'hackers paradise'?
Re: Someone is being optimistic
Is it 3 billion users though, or just accounts? I have at least 3 of those, only 1 still used occasionally.
I'm in!
I can allow FB access to my official ID documentation (which they will obviously not store or use in any way as they are a trustworthy company), I can pay them for the privilege and then, in return for my money, FB gives me a blue "gullible dot" moniker and continues to allow advertisers to feed me irrelevant or spam adverts and games who know I'm a real target, FB can even charge those advertisers a fee for "gullible dot" target lists! Everyone's a winner ... apart from me it appears.
Pull my other Clegg
Responding to a commentor on his Facebook feed, Zuckerberg said Meta "already [provides] protections and some support for everyone. But verifying government IDs and providing direct access to customer support for millions or billions of people costs a significant amount of money.
Once upon a time, the UK dabbled with ID Cards, and 'Trusted Identity' schemes. Some worked, some didn't, creeping compulsion remains and for some government services, you can sign in with your FaceMelta or AlphaGoo account. This was quick, easy, and free. The only cost being requiring one of those accounts, and allowing the data rapists even more visibility into your life.
Governments pay big tech for these services, but as always, they want more. Who are you? What are you doing? Stop it at once or you'll go blind and cost the NHS a fortune!
So we got this-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-legislation-set-to-make-digital-identities-more-trustworthy-and-secure
For example, if a person wants to prove they are over 18 to buy age-restricted products, they could create a digital identity with a trusted organisation by sharing personal information such as their name and date of birth. This digital identity could then be used to prove to a retailer they are over-18, without the need to reveal the personal information used to create the digital identity, boosting users’ privacy, unlike physical documents which may disclose date of birth, name and address.
The ODIA will have the power to issue an easily recognised trustmark to certified digital identity organisations, to prove they meet the security and privacy standards needed to handle people’s data in a safe and consistent way.
Sadly, ID Cards have never gone away, and lobbying for them hasn't either. ID Cards were sold to the public by telling us it would 'make our lives easier' to do stuff we were already used to doing. We could buy booze by flashing our card, and that transaction could be logged for future use. We could surf pron, and that transaction will be logged for future use.
So now we'll soon be able to have our transactions logged by presenting our 'smart' surveillance devices, which means Apple, AlphaGoo, FaceMelta etc will be able to flog trusted identity data to their partners and advertisers.
All it'll cost you is $12-$15 a month! A small price to pay to help Big Tech prove to their customers that you're not a bot account, and their ad-slinging tech is worth it, because you're worth it. Unless you don't have a compatible Digital Lifestyle Assistant following you everywhere. Then you're just SoL and won't be able to do stuff because, well, you can't be trusted. It's proposed legislation after all, so it'll be harder to avoid.
So far from costing poor lil Zuck money, policy proposals like this stand to make him a lot of money. Which is ironic given recent events show that a lot of 'Big Tech' just can't be trusted.
Avoiding impersonators
Yeah, sure, pull another one.
Let me translate the whole idea in plain English: YOU pay us to collect your VERIFIED personal information so WE can guarantee scammers.... erms, sorry, ad companies, that you are who you pretend to be.