🔗 Share this article

"A significant portion of my experiences is saved on the platform, and unexpectedly they demand us to pay for it."

One-star feedback and a sense of inequity have taken over social media conversations since Snapchat emerged as the most recent digital platform to start charging for a service that individuals previously utilized for at no cost.

The company behind Snapchat revealed in last month that it would start charging people if they have over five gigabytes worth of archived images and clips stored as the Memories feature.

For many, these retro posts function as a window to the past – prompting some to accuse the company of "money-hungry tactics" in comments on online platforms and poor reviews on digital storefronts.

Alternative Options

Snapchat's parent has compared its paid storage plans to those made available by major companies for mobile devices.

For those seeking another option for individuals avoiding fees, members have the ability to export their saved content – which for some amount to tens of gigabytes – to their own hardware.

The firm stated that only a small number of members would be affected by the updated terms.

It also acknowledged that it was "always challenging to transition from accessing content at no charge to covering the expense" – but suggested it would be "worth the cost" for users.

A significant number of opposing the change via digital channels clearly oppose this view.

Public Outcry

A web-based protest called the charge a "reminiscence fee", with participants describing it "dystopian" and "ridiculous" – while a user vowed to abandon the platform again.

At the same time, in a negative evaluation on the digital platform, a user named a pseudonymous user said it felt "very unethical".

"If I know millennials right, many people have extensive archives of personal moments on the platform," they said. "Numerous users only remained on the platform mostly for this purpose. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have years worth of recordings... Farewell Snapchat."

Additionally, a journalism student, a university student aspiring reporter in the UK capital, shared on a social network her plans to delete the platform.

"I decided that I had to save all my archived media as quickly as possible," she stated. "Almost all of my teenage years have been recorded through my saved snaps, all of the images in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"It just doesn't make sense to introduce fees individuals for a feature that has been at no cost for so many years."

Uncertain Costs

The company has not disclosed how much storage plans would cost in the UK – only that they are part of a "phased international launch".

Yet 23-year-old Amber Daley, who also lives in London, stated in a video on the video service that she would be "distraught" by the new costs.

She noted that the platform had become "a part of everyday life" since she started using it in the past.

Although she acknowledged she recognized the app needed to make money, Amber indicated that the Memories feature holds greater significance than the corporation may have understood.

"In my opinion it's a somewhat inequitable step to impose fees on your subscribers who have been loyal and devoted," she said. "These are not merely labeled 'Memories', these are our real-life recollections."

Expert Analysis

Firms deciding to charge from subscribers for a function that was once complimentary is a frequent occurrence, and countless individuals cover the cost of platforms like cloud storage solutions to save their photos and videos from their smartphone.

The fact of keeping information in the online servers – which some in the technology sector like to refer to as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it costs money.

"Hosting enormous quantities of Memories on Snapchat isn't a trivial amount," online expert Matt Navarra explained. "The company has to attempt to identify a method to fund the operation of data retention, network usage, back-ups, file sharing, encryption – all that stuff."

However the consultant indicated that introducing fees for a feature that had once been complimentary, and members had been encouraged to use as such, may feel like a "misleading tactic" for many people.

"Changing the rules after individuals have built this extensive stored content feels inappropriate," he explained. And for many, he continued, "Saved content is more than stored files, they're emotional artefacts."

The sentiment was reflected by those posting unfavorable comments, with an individual describing their Snapchat photos and videos "extremely valuable to me".

"These archives contain each part of my personal journey within them from celebrations of new family members' births, grieving for lost relatives, memories with friends/family, [and] my whole teenage years," they commented.

Academic Insight

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at Utrecht University in the Holland, said that Snapchat's move highlights the implications of for-profit services being used to store emotional private media.

"Platforms gain from this reliance, connected relationship, and assumption of perpetual availability, which even motivates certain individuals to continue using the app or persist with the feature in order to revisit their archive," she told the media. "However these are not charitable custodians of personal memory."