4 ms·

I think the reasoning is that if you aren't already connected and it isn't worth spending $1 to make sure the other person sees the message, then how much utili

I think the reasoning is that if you aren't already connected and it isn't worth spending $1 to make sure the other person sees the message, then how much utility does it really have? I suppose there could be a case where the utility to you is low, but the utility to the user is very high, but in this case they are probably seeking you out and you should invest in cost-per-click/conversion advertising instead of cost-per-impression. Facebook's proposed model has a very high cost-per-impression, which is what weeds out much of the spam. You have to get a very high conversion rate before it becomes economical, which implies that the message was indeed relevant. In fact, being an inbox message probably increases the conversion rate over other communication methods (such as ads and spam)

rm999 14y ago
The messages I get from non-friends are usually from old friends asking if I'm the correct rm999 (well, my real name). I think these messages do have a lot of utility, but I would never pay to send them. They also provide value to facebook by increasing the size of their social network. Uptown also brought up the semi-contrived (but still excellent) example of a found wallet, which is another case where the value to the sender is low but the global utility is high. Anyway, I get virtually zero e-mail spam and my e-mail address has been public for eight years. I don't see why facebook wants to shake things up. I consider spam a mostly solved problem.