4 ms·

Let's say you run a restaurant. Facebook decides that they aren't getting enough money from local restaurants, and thus choose to greatly reduce the exposure o

Let's say you run a restaurant. Facebook decides that they aren't getting enough money from local restaurants, and thus choose to greatly reduce the exposure of content that users share with their friends about restaurants that aren't paying them. You aren't even a Facebook user, but your competitors are and do pay them. Mentions of their restaurants actually get higher visibility than normal content and go viral, while mentions of your restaurant get no exposure at all. Your restaurant dies, while your competitors thrive. It doesn't matter if you log in or not. Facebook policies can affect the fortunes of nearly every type of business.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago
While I see your point, I would believe this more with a website that was specifically used to search, aggregate, recommend, and communicate with restaurants (or other businesses). When did we start using Facebook to search for restaurants, movies, malls, shopping? I honestly do not consider FB as a source to find such places -- Google Maps (or just any search engine people use), Yelp, or whatever else serves its purpose much better, wouldn't you say? Is a crowd that uses FB the most also the one with enough spending power to have such an influence?
- brennebeck 10y ago
  Where I live now (Philippines) this is exactly how Facebook is used. Local businesses don't even put up websites many times because it's far more important to have an updated and active Facebook page. Additionally, all sectors of the market use it here. However, I definitely recognize this isn't the case in the US and many European countries.
siquick 10y ago
This is no different to any other form of advertising in history.
- downandout 10y ago
  No, it's not. As the preferred social sharing platform, they control conversations about things by controlling the exposure that various shares get. That is entirely different from everything that came before it.
  - caf 10y ago
    Presumably as it became apparent that Facebook was squelching conversations about businesses that had not paid the tax, people would learn to have those kinds of conversations elsewhere instead.
  - siquick 10y ago
    "Let's say you run a restaurant. Facebook decides that they aren't getting enough money from local restaurants, and thus choose to greatly reduce the exposure of content that users share with their friends about restaurants that aren't paying them. You aren't even a Facebook user, but your competitors are and do pay them. Mentions of their restaurants actually get higher visibility than normal content and go viral, while mentions of your restaurant get no exposure at all. Your restaurant dies, while your competitors thrive." This is no different to word-of-mouth reviews, that came from people who found out about a restaurant from a paid advert in a newspaper in 1950. If your restaurant didn't list in the paper (i.e. you didn't want to pay the premium for the advert) then you were at an immediate disadvantage.
cortesoft 10y ago
This seems like basic market economics at work; as a restaurant owner, you have to make a choice - do I make more money back by paying Facebook their fee or by not paying them. If the answer is that I make more by paying them, then obviously they are providing a service that is worth what they are charging. If not, then it is not worth it and you don't pay it. I am really struggling to see the problem with what you describe; how is it any different that advertising anywhere else? You decide if the cost of the ad is worth the ROI. Part of that decision includes knowing that your competitors might also advertise. Does Pepsi get mad that Coke spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl commercials so they have to, too?
- downandout 10y ago
  The network that displays the Super Bowl doesn't get to decide which brand people talk about after the game. Facebook is using News Feed to control conversations and narrative by controlling what is seen and not seen.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Does Pepsi get mad that Coke spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl commercials so they have to, too? Probably. Advertising is somewhat analogous to mutually assured destruction.
- gruez 10y ago
  >I am really struggling to see the problem with what you describe; how is it any different that advertising anywhere else? Facebook holds a near monopoly on social networks, and it's exploiting that to extract rents in the form of advertising

eatbitseveryday 10y ago

While I see your point, I would believe this more with a website that was specifically used to search, aggregate, recommend, and communicate with restaurants (or other businesses). When did we start using Facebook to search for restaurants, movies, malls, shopping? I honestly do not consider FB as a source to find such places -- Google Maps (or just any search engine people use), Yelp, or whatever else serves its purpose much better, wouldn't you say? Is a crowd that uses FB the most also the one with enough spending power to have such an influence?

brennebeck 10y ago
Where I live now (Philippines) this is exactly how Facebook is used. Local businesses don't even put up websites many times because it's far more important to have an updated and active Facebook page. Additionally, all sectors of the market use it here. However, I definitely recognize this isn't the case in the US and many European countries.

siquick 10y ago

This is no different to any other form of advertising in history.

downandout 10y ago
No, it's not. As the preferred social sharing platform, they control conversations about things by controlling the exposure that various shares get. That is entirely different from everything that came before it.
- caf 10y ago
  Presumably as it became apparent that Facebook was squelching conversations about businesses that had not paid the tax, people would learn to have those kinds of conversations elsewhere instead.
- siquick 10y ago
  "Let's say you run a restaurant. Facebook decides that they aren't getting enough money from local restaurants, and thus choose to greatly reduce the exposure of content that users share with their friends about restaurants that aren't paying them. You aren't even a Facebook user, but your competitors are and do pay them. Mentions of their restaurants actually get higher visibility than normal content and go viral, while mentions of your restaurant get no exposure at all. Your restaurant dies, while your competitors thrive." This is no different to word-of-mouth reviews, that came from people who found out about a restaurant from a paid advert in a newspaper in 1950. If your restaurant didn't list in the paper (i.e. you didn't want to pay the premium for the advert) then you were at an immediate disadvantage.

cortesoft 10y ago

This seems like basic market economics at work; as a restaurant owner, you have to make a choice - do I make more money back by paying Facebook their fee or by not paying them. If the answer is that I make more by paying them, then obviously they are providing a service that is worth what they are charging. If not, then it is not worth it and you don't pay it. I am really struggling to see the problem with what you describe; how is it any different that advertising anywhere else? You decide if the cost of the ad is worth the ROI. Part of that decision includes knowing that your competitors might also advertise. Does Pepsi get mad that Coke spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl commercials so they have to, too?

downandout 10y ago
The network that displays the Super Bowl doesn't get to decide which brand people talk about after the game. Facebook is using News Feed to control conversations and narrative by controlling what is seen and not seen.
nitrogen 10y ago
Does Pepsi get mad that Coke spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl commercials so they have to, too? Probably. Advertising is somewhat analogous to mutually assured destruction.
gruez 10y ago
>I am really struggling to see the problem with what you describe; how is it any different that advertising anywhere else? Facebook holds a near monopoly on social networks, and it's exploiting that to extract rents in the form of advertising