3 ms·
You're just falling into Facebook's ostensible justification for aggressive monetization tactics. This is content that users voluntarily signed up to receive. F
by imjk 14y ago
You're just falling into Facebook's ostensible justification for aggressive monetization tactics. This is content that users voluntarily signed up to receive. Facebook is already setup for users to curate what content they receive. They chose who to friend, what personalities to follow, and what fan pages to like. They have the additional option to limit certain types of posts from certain people. They also have the ultimate means to limit content by blocking, un-friending, un-following, and un-liking pages.
This is simply a weak excuse given by Facebook to charge brands, which they have every right to do. But to say their motivation is to stop spam is simply dubious.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- AJ007 14y agoAs TeMPOraL correctly pointed out, it is not content users voluntarily signed up to receive -- its content that they "liked." Facebook is following the same game plan Google has used: give away free traffic at incredible volume, then start charging for it. I believe Facebook's mistake is that they should have some sort of transparency in regards to why they are charging what they are charging. In Google's case, what you are charged is based on what your competitors say its worth (ok, not really but that is Google's story and pretty much everyone believes it.) From what I see, Facebook is just throwing out a number which page owners see as extortion.
- Ntrails 14y agoThere used to be a list of groups I liked on my profile. It was a way of highlighting a few things that amused or attracted me. "I want to punch slow walking people in the back of the head" or "The skeffington 19 bluepoint appreciation society" User content not brand content. The latest changes might push facebook back in that direction and I wouldn't be sorry. I don't see it making them a lot of money though.