6 ms·
Remember when people were paid to appear in a corporation's ads?
by jgilliam 16y ago
Remember when people were paid to appear in a corporation's ads?
- code_duck 16y agoYeah, this is a nice twist - Facebook makes money, Starbucks makes money, and the people providing the content and authority get nothing.
- gojomo 16y agoWell, the "people providing the content and authority" get Facebook for free... including for all the years before this was unveiled.
- code_duck 16y agoConsidering that Facebook has multi-billion dollar valuation, makes money selling users advertising, and makes money selling analyses of user information, my view is that the users are kindly donating Facebook their information, not that Facebook is kindly donating their service. While users may benefit personally from the service being available, Facebook are the ones benefiting financially. Users do not give Facebook money directly, but they contribute something valuable to the company just by using the site. I see it as a business relationship the same as if I was paying money for the service.
- gojomo 16y agoNeither side is 'kindly donating' their portion. Both are getting back more than they give, in a voluntary mutually-beneficial transaction. Or they'd each do something else instead.
- code_duck 16y agoI agree, I mainly state it like that as a foil to the commonly heard idea that these sites are giving us something for free. They're not; they're giving us a service in exchange for what we give to them. Now and then I see someone complain about a free service, Google for instance, and receive a response such as "Well you're entitled to all your money back". This is stated as if the customer has no right to complain, because the service is 'free'. As you noted, that it is not the case. It's more of a symbiotic relationship. Thought Facebook is clearly free to do as they wish, I personally feel that using my messages to friends to promote products for Facebook's profit is something other than what I expected when I signed up.
- s_jambo 16y agohomo-economicus is an absurd simplification.