🔗 Share this article

"Half of my personal history is archived on this app, and suddenly they demand us to pay for it."

Negative feedback and a perception of injustice have taken over online discussion since the messaging service joined the latest technology company to start charging for a service that individuals previously accessed for free.

The company behind Snapchat revealed in the fall that it would require payment from subscribers if they have more than five gigabytes of previously shared photos and clips stored as Snapchat Memories.

For many, these old snaps function as a window to the past – leading some to accuse the firm of "profit-driven motives" in messages on social media and negative feedback on Google and Apple's app stores.

Available Solutions

Snap has equated its subscription options to those provided by tech giants for smartphones.

For those seeking another option for users unwilling to subscribe, members may save their archived media – which for many people span significant data – to their device.

Snap mentioned that only a small number of users would be affected by the updated terms.

The company admitted that it was "never easy to shift from accessing content at no charge to paying for it" – but suggested it would be "justified by the benefits" for subscribers.

A significant number of opposing the change online appear unconvinced.

User Backlash

A digital campaign dubbed the charge a "memory tax", with participants describing it "dystopian" and "absurd" – while one person promised never to use the platform in the future.

In parallel, in a poor rating on the Google Play store, a user named a pseudonymous user said it felt "very unethical".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, many people have a long history of memories on the platform," they said. "And most of us only kept the app mainly for that reason. Such limited storage is inadequate when you have a long timeline of moments... Goodbye to the app."

And, a London-based user, a young adult journalism student in the UK capital, posted on a social network her plans to delete the app.

"I decided that I wanted to export all my saved content as quickly as possible," she explained. "Nearly every part of my teenage years have been recorded through my saved snaps, all of the pictures in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"This seems illogical to introduce fees individuals for a service that has been at no cost for so many years."

Uncertain Costs

Snapchat has not yet said how much subscription tiers would be priced at in the Britain – only that they are part of a "gradual global rollout".

But 23-year-old another user, who resides in the capital, stated in a video on the video service that she would be "devastated" by the new costs.

Amber noted that the app had become "a part of everyday life" since she began accessing it in the past.

Despite admitting she recognized the service needed to make money, the user proposed that the archival function holds greater significance than the firm may have understood.

"Personally, I believe it's quite an unfair decision to impose fees on your users who have been faithful and dedicated," she explained. "These are not merely labeled 'Memories', these are our real-life recollections."

Industry Perspective

Firms choosing to require payment from customers for a service that was earlier without cost is a frequent occurrence, and countless individuals subscribe to platforms like iCloud and Google Drive to backup their media content from their mobile device.

The truth of archiving content in the online servers – which certain experts in the digital field like to refer to as simply "somebody else's computer" – is that it costs money.

"Hosting enormous quantities of saved content on Snapchat isn't a trivial amount," digital strategist Matt Navarra explained. "The platform has to seek out a way to offset the expenses of archiving, network usage, back-ups, media distribution, data protection – all that stuff."

However Mr Navarra said that imposing charges for a feature that had once been complimentary, and users had been prompted to utilize as such, may seem like a "deceptive practice" for some.

"Moving the goalposts after users have accumulated this massive online collection seems unfair," he explained. In the view of countless individuals, he added, "Memories aren't just data dumps, they're sentimental records."

The opinion was shared by those submitting negative feedback, with a user calling their archived media "extremely valuable to me".

"The stored media includes every aspect of my personal journey within them from celebrations of new family members' births, grieving for lost relatives, memories with friends/family, [and] my complete adolescence," they expressed.

Research Perspective

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at a Dutch institution in the the Low Countries, said that the company's action shows the implications of for-profit services being used to archive meaningful individual recordings.

"Platforms gain from this trust, connected relationship, and expectation of continuous entry, which even incentivises certain individuals to remain with the platform or persist with the feature in order to revisit their saved content," she explained to journalists. "Yet these are not benevolent guardians of individual recollection."