4 ms·
Semantics aside, whether or not FB users are "customers," FB obviously needs them in order to be in business. Without them, it gets 0 dollars. So the original
by billybob 16y ago
Semantics aside, whether or not FB users are "customers," FB obviously needs them in order to be in business. Without them, it gets 0 dollars.
So the original point, "you have no right to complain because you don't pay to use it," is silly. Whether or not users have a RIGHT to complain, FB should prefer responding to their complaints over losing them as users.
As it happens, it seems that most FB users aren't phased by anything FB does in terms of privacy or heavy-handed policies. So unless those complaints get loud enough to signal that users are about to start leaving en masse, FB doesn't need to care.
- akadien 16y agoIn general, I agree the statement "you have no right to complain because you don't pay to use it" is silly. In the context of "a user violates the terms of usage, is repeatedly reminded of them, continues to violate them, is banned, and then complains about it", it's not. The guy was spamming people to sell a book. It's a special case, not a general rule.