4 ms·
Facebook Gets a Little Less “Free” for Members
- lutusp 14y agoI am astonished. The idea that people would volunteer for, and ultimately pay for, the Facebook experience takes my breath way. It's not as though Facebook is the only online social experience, or that there are no alternatives. Competition in a marketplace is generally accepted as a "good thing™". Why should the same reasoning not apply to online social experiences? Why should Facebook be the only player in this game, especially when, over time, their behavior toward subscribers becomes more contemptuous and predatory?
- freehunter 14y agoI've heard for years that the path to a better web would lie in for-pay services. Even here on HN, people often repeat "if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer". I don't see an issue with Facebook asking you to pay to give your status a priority over everything else. Advertisers already do just that. Facebook needs to make money, and having users pay to have placement over ads is a way to do that. It's far from required, but if someone sees value in it, it's there.
- lutusp 14y ago> I don't see an issue with Facebook asking you to pay to give your status a priority over everything else. Advertisers already do just that. But Facebook already has advertising in a dozen ways, This is just another way to squeeze more money out of the system and its subscribers. And chances are it will work, because Facebook subscribers don't see that they have an alternative. That's why I posted -- it's wrong, they do. I think meaningful competition would shift power back to the subscribers where it belongs.
- duskwuff 14y agoAnd another urban myth takes a step towards becoming reality... http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gold-membership-trolling http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gold-membership-trolling