←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 6 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.017s | source | bottom
Show context
b0a04gl ◴[17 Jun 25 06:18 UTC] No.44296183[source]▶
everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about revenue, it's about control. they’re reshaping a private messaging tool into a broadcast platform with tracking hooks. and most users won’t even notice until it’s too embedded to undo
replies(5): >>44296420 #>>44296685 #>>44296698 #>>44296875 #>>44297519 #
phyrex ◴[17 Jun 25 10:27 UTC] No.44297519[source]▶
It's been 11 years. If they hadn't been bought they'd have found a different monetization model long ago
replies(3): >>44297725 #>>44297856 #>>44298154 #
owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 11:10 UTC] No.44297725[source]▶
WhatsApp make billions of dollars but Meta wants it to make hundreds of billions. There's no way to appease the dragon.
replies(2): >>44298245 #>>44299261 #
1. bachmeier ◴[17 Jun 25 13:53 UTC] No.44299261{3}[source]▶
How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.
replies(3): >>44299581 #>>44299625 #>>44300626 #
2. mikestew ◴[17 Jun 25 14:19 UTC] No.44299581[source]▶
So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?
replies(1): >>44302798 #
3. Coffeewine ◴[17 Jun 25 14:23 UTC] No.44299625[source]▶
What choice do we have? Indeed, I would rather prefer that the companies that comprise the broad market embrace some form of ESG ethos, but that's clearly out of vogue these days. I vote to that extent, but I'm a breathtakingly small portion of the vote when it comes to corporate governance.
replies(1): >>44308931 #
4. owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 15:55 UTC] No.44300626[source]▶
That is not my case. If Meta had minted thousands of millionaires in my country I would have way less problems with them
5. bachmeier ◴[17 Jun 25 19:17 UTC] No.44302798[source]▶
Well, I'm saying we should be hesitant to immediately throw out blame for pursuing profit, because it's not just more money for Zuckerberg and other billionaires. If retirement funds were growing at 2%, the same people criticizing this decision would be looking for alternative investment vehicles.
6. account42 ◴[18 Jun 25 11:30 UTC] No.44308931[source]▶
How would being actively discriminatory against a large part of the population help anything?