5 ms·

Look I can understand the "oh it's so convenient that you can now pay to promote your posts" but the "turning down the volume" on the Newsfeed was done because

Look I can understand the "oh it's so convenient that you can now pay to promote your posts" but the "turning down the volume" on the Newsfeed was done because our Newsfeeds were getting overrun. People added too many friends, thousands more than the 150 it's been proven we can reasonably empathize with, and people were doing more and more on the network. You can STILL see posts of your favorite bands by going to their pages, which is how you used to have to find updates: by checking for them. The Newsfeed is new, and it's not a right.

tomasien 14y ago
I resist the urge to say "don't be silly" here because not everyone is intimately familiar with the evolution of Facebook. I can understand believing that full access to every single one of your fan's, even the ones who have been ignoring your posts, is a right you have as a Facebook user. The only right you have is to control content on your own pages, for the most part, not what other people see in their Newsfeeds. If you thought about it for even a SECOND you'd realize that's exactly how it should be and that what these people are arguing for is for self-serving reasons only.
- jonknee 14y ago
  > The only right you have is to control content on your own pages, for the most part, not what other people see in their Newsfeeds Unless you pay the vig. Spam away as long as Zuck gets a taste.
  - tomasien 14y ago
    Wait, so it's spam if you want all your followers or friends to see it but before when that was the default it wasn't spam? You can't have it both ways.
    - lmm 14y ago
      Sometimes it's spam, sometimes it isn't. The point is that changing the default hasn't made it any less spammy, it just means more revenue for FB.
- Nowyouknow 14y ago
  You have to realize, previously, when a page was "liked" that was equivalent to WANTING to see updates from this Facebook page. That simple like was a 2-way contract, you're interested in us, when we post, you will be aware of it. Now the "liker" could be missing out on items they find important, and the fan page is effectively impotent in reaching that fan unless they pay to promote the post. It really is a bait and switch and I'm surprised there isn't MORE outrage about it.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    I understand why people are frustrated, but you are failing to identify the root cause of their frustation: they were getting something of value (PR for businesses, sharing of personal information, etc.) from Facebook for free, and now they're complaining because Facebook wants to charge them for it. Guess what: Facebook owns their site, their servers, and their PR mechanisms. It's up to them what things to charge for, how to control the distribution of information that you put on their servers, etc. If someone doesn't like it, they can pay to set up their own social network. Edit: Oh, and "bait and switch" isn't really accurate. You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account.
    - gergles 14y ago
      Without me (and people like me), they don't have a site. So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I'm about as from "just a user" as you can get. On a ranting note, this attitude is incredibly offensive to the users of social networks and SaaS providers; and I'm stunned to see it met with so much traction on a community of startup owners. If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        "Customer" and "user" are just words. To me, "customer" implies that you are paying, but I'm fine with adopting a different usage of the word for purposes of this discussion. If you are a person who actually complains about Facebook's actions, then I disagree that without people like you, they don't have a site. Most users/customers don't appear to complain at all; they just keep using FB and adapting to the changes and never even think about the longer-term consequences. If all the people who actually are complaining now up and leave, FB will still have plenty of users/customers. The only way that will change is if lots of users/customers start to believe that the costs of using FB outweigh the benefits. And the only way that will change is if people who can actually find or build alternatives, like the owners of businesses that make heavy use of the Internet, lead the way. > If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong. So, basically, you're saying Facebook is doing it wrong. Please tell Mark Zuckerberg, not me. [Edit: added the below.] > So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I should probably unpack a little why I object to the word "customer" in this context. I agree that a customer doesn't have to "pay" in money; any exchange of value for value will do for that aspect of it. But a customer knows the price of what he is buying. Facebook doesn't set a price on your usage of the site; you just use it. That means you and Facebook can't exchange price signals to optimize the exchange of value; you send plenty of "signals" to Facebook as part of your usage of the site, but those signals optimize their exchange of value with advertisers and marketers, not with you. Economically speaking, this is the root cause of the problems the OP is complaining about; he has to post his complaint on his blog because he has no way of influencing FB the way a real customer would, through his purchasing behavior. (Except, of course, for the very crude option of "stop using the site altogether", which is the one I would favor. If enough people actually do that, FB might be motivated to look for ways to make its users into real customers instead of pseudo-customers. But I wouldn't hold my breath.)
kscaldef 14y ago
I object to Facebook making this decision for me. I _didn't_ add too many friends. My newsfeed _wasn't_ overrun. Yeah, I had to hide a few annoying Apps, but no big deal. And then, one day, I stopped seeing posts from lots of people, including many of the people I most wanted to see posts from. It took a while before I even realized this was happening. Then I slowly had to go through and fix the settings for people to tell FB that "yes, really, show me all the posts". And, still, every couple of days Facebook forgets that I've set my sort to "Most Recent" and goes back to "Top Stories" and not showing me everything. This gets tiresome, to say the least.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>I object to Facebook making this decision for me. Facebook makes a lot of decisions for you. It's a free service, so it's their prerogative. If you don't like it, you can always deactivate your account like I did.
  - bostonpete 14y ago
    > If you don't like it, you can always deactivate > your account like I did. ...and he can also gripe about it in a public forum in the hopes that if enough people do so, Facebook will change it's behavior. It wouldn't be the first time FB changed their policies due to grumbling users.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      yawn You have to be delusional to believe that Facebook will change the functionality of a major feature because of a few people who are complaining about it on Hacker News.
      - scott_s 14y ago
        I don't think bostonpete was referring to this exact thread, but in the aggregate. That is, if enough people in enough places complain enough, it may change.
aneth4 14y ago
Convenient that this is also a windfall for Facebook - you know, it's for OUR benefit. Consider why Facebook doesn't have a "more" button for users tired of staring at the same Facebook filtered posts. Because that would be giving users what the want without charging anyone. (Even the recent posts sort - a hidden option - doesn't seem to work anymore) This is extortion and anti-user. No bones about it. Users requested this information in their feed and it would be trivial to give it to them. It's fine to filter, but not fine to not allow unfiltering.
pdog 14y ago
Minor nitpick: Dunbar's number[1] hasn't been proven. -- [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

tomasien 14y ago

I resist the urge to say "don't be silly" here because not everyone is intimately familiar with the evolution of Facebook. I can understand believing that full access to every single one of your fan's, even the ones who have been ignoring your posts, is a right you have as a Facebook user. The only right you have is to control content on your own pages, for the most part, not what other people see in their Newsfeeds. If you thought about it for even a SECOND you'd realize that's exactly how it should be and that what these people are arguing for is for self-serving reasons only.

jonknee 14y ago
> The only right you have is to control content on your own pages, for the most part, not what other people see in their Newsfeeds Unless you pay the vig. Spam away as long as Zuck gets a taste.
- tomasien 14y ago
  Wait, so it's spam if you want all your followers or friends to see it but before when that was the default it wasn't spam? You can't have it both ways.
  - lmm 14y ago
    Sometimes it's spam, sometimes it isn't. The point is that changing the default hasn't made it any less spammy, it just means more revenue for FB.
Nowyouknow 14y ago
You have to realize, previously, when a page was "liked" that was equivalent to WANTING to see updates from this Facebook page. That simple like was a 2-way contract, you're interested in us, when we post, you will be aware of it. Now the "liker" could be missing out on items they find important, and the fan page is effectively impotent in reaching that fan unless they pay to promote the post. It really is a bait and switch and I'm surprised there isn't MORE outrage about it.
- pdonis 14y ago
  I understand why people are frustrated, but you are failing to identify the root cause of their frustation: they were getting something of value (PR for businesses, sharing of personal information, etc.) from Facebook for free, and now they're complaining because Facebook wants to charge them for it. Guess what: Facebook owns their site, their servers, and their PR mechanisms. It's up to them what things to charge for, how to control the distribution of information that you put on their servers, etc. If someone doesn't like it, they can pay to set up their own social network. Edit: Oh, and "bait and switch" isn't really accurate. You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account.
  - gergles 14y ago
    Without me (and people like me), they don't have a site. So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I'm about as from "just a user" as you can get. On a ranting note, this attitude is incredibly offensive to the users of social networks and SaaS providers; and I'm stunned to see it met with so much traction on a community of startup owners. If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      "Customer" and "user" are just words. To me, "customer" implies that you are paying, but I'm fine with adopting a different usage of the word for purposes of this discussion. If you are a person who actually complains about Facebook's actions, then I disagree that without people like you, they don't have a site. Most users/customers don't appear to complain at all; they just keep using FB and adapting to the changes and never even think about the longer-term consequences. If all the people who actually are complaining now up and leave, FB will still have plenty of users/customers. The only way that will change is if lots of users/customers start to believe that the costs of using FB outweigh the benefits. And the only way that will change is if people who can actually find or build alternatives, like the owners of businesses that make heavy use of the Internet, lead the way. > If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong. So, basically, you're saying Facebook is doing it wrong. Please tell Mark Zuckerberg, not me. [Edit: added the below.] > So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I should probably unpack a little why I object to the word "customer" in this context. I agree that a customer doesn't have to "pay" in money; any exchange of value for value will do for that aspect of it. But a customer knows the price of what he is buying. Facebook doesn't set a price on your usage of the site; you just use it. That means you and Facebook can't exchange price signals to optimize the exchange of value; you send plenty of "signals" to Facebook as part of your usage of the site, but those signals optimize their exchange of value with advertisers and marketers, not with you. Economically speaking, this is the root cause of the problems the OP is complaining about; he has to post his complaint on his blog because he has no way of influencing FB the way a real customer would, through his purchasing behavior. (Except, of course, for the very crude option of "stop using the site altogether", which is the one I would favor. If enough people actually do that, FB might be motivated to look for ways to make its users into real customers instead of pseudo-customers. But I wouldn't hold my breath.)

kscaldef 14y ago

I object to Facebook making this decision for me. I _didn't_ add too many friends. My newsfeed _wasn't_ overrun. Yeah, I had to hide a few annoying Apps, but no big deal. And then, one day, I stopped seeing posts from lots of people, including many of the people I most wanted to see posts from. It took a while before I even realized this was happening. Then I slowly had to go through and fix the settings for people to tell FB that "yes, really, show me all the posts". And, still, every couple of days Facebook forgets that I've set my sort to "Most Recent" and goes back to "Top Stories" and not showing me everything. This gets tiresome, to say the least.

enraged_camel 14y ago
>>I object to Facebook making this decision for me. Facebook makes a lot of decisions for you. It's a free service, so it's their prerogative. If you don't like it, you can always deactivate your account like I did.
- bostonpete 14y ago
  > If you don't like it, you can always deactivate > your account like I did. ...and he can also gripe about it in a public forum in the hopes that if enough people do so, Facebook will change it's behavior. It wouldn't be the first time FB changed their policies due to grumbling users.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    yawn You have to be delusional to believe that Facebook will change the functionality of a major feature because of a few people who are complaining about it on Hacker News.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      I don't think bostonpete was referring to this exact thread, but in the aggregate. That is, if enough people in enough places complain enough, it may change.

aneth4 14y ago

Convenient that this is also a windfall for Facebook - you know, it's for OUR benefit. Consider why Facebook doesn't have a "more" button for users tired of staring at the same Facebook filtered posts. Because that would be giving users what the want without charging anyone. (Even the recent posts sort - a hidden option - doesn't seem to work anymore) This is extortion and anti-user. No bones about it. Users requested this information in their feed and it would be trivial to give it to them. It's fine to filter, but not fine to not allow unfiltering.

pdog 14y ago

Minor nitpick: Dunbar's number[1] hasn't been proven. -- [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number