The End of Facebook As We Know It?

[boost]

Dangerous Minds | FACEBOOK: I WANT MY FRIENDS BACK

tldr: facebook has implemented a new "service" that essentially is only needed since they've put an artificial barrier between users and businesses. This service is priced in a way that only businesses who are ok taking a huge loss on facebook promotions, such as Chase Bank. A small to medium sized blog that is regularly updated would be looking at laying out five figures a month to have the same reach as they once did.

[spoonitnow]

Gettin paid!

[Hawk]

I still wish Google+ would take off. It's sooooo much better, with the one obvious exception being that the people you want to keep in touch with probably aren't there.

[boost]

I still wish Google+ would take off. It's sooooo much better, with the one obvious exception being that the people you want to keep in touch with probably aren't there.

And sadly this probably won't spark the migration. But then again it might. The reason it won't, is because this is a tax on the blogs, businesses, and so on... not the user base. If they retain the user base, they can essentially do whatever they want. However, it might spark the shift to google+, because it is badly implemented and all users are subject to being charged to reach their entire friend list. People have generally taken facebook changes laying down. Sure they protest in their statuses when a feature is tweaked, added, or removed, but they keep on keepin' on. But if this garners enough attention, it could be the straw.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't really care to read the article.

The reason it won't, is because this is a tax on the blogs, businesses, and so on... not the user base.

This seems like a brilliant piece of political rhetoric. Talk about bills as private taxes. It makes me want to lower my Verizon tax.

[boost]

But that's just the thing, when a monopoly exists, any increased or new fees are essentially taxes.

[Penneywize]

But that's just the thing, when a monopoly exists, any increased or new fees are essentially taxes.

No, "tax" is not the right word. From what you've said this is just an example of monopoly pricing. Monopolists ideally charge exactly each customer's (revealed, not stated) willingness to pay.

There are different ways to go about doing this but FB seems to have selected the "charge 'em a ridiculous rate and fuck the rest" route, which, barring a mass exodus as you and rilla talked about, will probably work.

[wufwugy]

facebook is likely to crumble eventually, but for what reason is not easily predictable. my guess is that eventually they will have to make a ton of updates, will do it wrong, then competitors (mostly google) will take over

i also dont ever use fb so i have no idea what im talking about. when i have used it i have found that it's crap relative to what it should be

[wufwugy]

however, on the flip side it doesn't pay to compete with fb at this point due to how they generate revenue (or dont)

[OngBonga]

This really looks to me like commercial suicide.

[a500lbgorilla]

No, "tax" is not the right word. From what you've said this is just an example of monopoly pricing. Monopolists ideally charge exactly each customer's (revealed, not stated) willingness to pay.

There are different ways to go about doing this but FB seems to have selected the "charge 'em a ridiculous rate and fuck the rest" route, which, barring a mass exodus as you and rilla talked about, will probably work.

No "tax" isn't the right word if we're talking in the language of economists. If we're talking in the language of the common man, tax very well could be the right word. The point of rhetoric isn't to convey truth, it's to convince people. It's just like when people say evolution is just a theory, purposefully misapplying the word theory to convince people they can easily deny the truth of it.

So a tax is a vig imposed by the gov't, and monopolistic pricing is a vig imposed by a monopoly. It doesn't seem nearly as dishonest as theory v theory.

barring a mass exodus as you and rilla talked about, will probably work.

When was this? Not that I mind, since I wouldn't mind seeing Facebook tumble.

[Pascal]

I still wish Google+ would take off. It's sooooo much better, with the one obvious exception being that the people you want to keep in touch with probably aren't there.

I set up a Google+ account the other day and thought it was awful

[Hoopy]

Facebook be needing teh monies.

[OngBonga]

Indeed. What better way to get money than to drive your customers away. This is bullshit. All those silly people who bought shares in facebook, good luck getting a return on your investement. You got scammed. If they persist with charging people to reach out to their friends or fan base or whatever, people will just fuck off and advertising revenue will drop dramatically. They're probably already setting up its replacement, and deciding when to float that company and then screw it over to make silly money. Capitalism baby.

[spoonitnow]

Why shouldn't they charge people to reach out to their customers? These businesses are making money by using Facebook, and Facebook is getting a piece of it.

Edit: It's worth noting that they are charging based roughly on the number of people who will see your post. It's not a static amount that everyone has to pay no matter how many people they are wanting to speak to.

[Pascal]

If they persist with charging people to reach out to their friends or fan base or whatever, people will just fuck off and advertising revenue will drop dramatically.

This seems kinda paradoxical?

[Galapogos]

Yeah I don't understand how this is such a huge deal. People get so up in arms about things Facebook does as if someone just reached through the screen and made a change to their personal computer. Facebook is a business that tries to make money. We knew Facebook would look for more ways to monetize more of their business and this is one of the most unobtrusive options.

So now users won't always see George Takei's latest post show up in their newsfeed. However, if it's so important they see his posts they can just go to his page. Doesn't strike me as a huge issue at all. Definitely not something that's going to create a mass exodus of the user base.

The article also says that they've been rolling back the amount of users these businesses reach for a while now. I haven't heard anyone make a single complaint about it yet.

I think at most, if stories like this are read by the general user base (which I doubt because it doesn't come in the form of an overdone really shitty meme), that they will bitch about the changes on Facebook, have friends also comment about how they think it's bullshit on Facebook, go to that friend's page and "like" some picture they posted, and go about their regular Facebook day.

[boost]

Why shouldn't they charge people to reach out to their customers? These businesses are making money by using Facebook, and Facebook is getting a piece of it.

Edit: It's worth noting that they are charging based roughly on the number of people who will see your post. It's not a static amount that everyone has to pay no matter how many people they are wanting to speak to.

Well, the problem is that these businesses aren't just leaching off of facebook, but they've also been feeding their fanbase to facebook with strategically placed widgets on their blogs, homepages, etc. It was a symbiotic relationship. And as a single user, I've uploaded my content, and my content is what gives FB any value it has. Now FB is saying, "hey, thanks for the free lunch, but you'll have to pay me five bucks for me to eat it."

You may not agree that it's morally wrong, and I'm not completely sure I think it's morally wrong, but you have to concede that this is a big deal and will upset the flow of FB. And furthermore I think it's always important to be weary of an artificially imposed point of entrance that essentially bars the small guy and is only passable by corporations with bottomless bankrolls.

[OngBonga]

Why shouldn't they charge people to reach out to their customers? These businesses are making money by using Facebook, and Facebook is getting a piece of it.

Well, I guess the argument is that these businesses gain traffic from facebook, and in turn they direct traffic to facebook with links etc. But I don't have a problem with them charging businesses, and I don't think the businesses do either. But it's the rate they're charging... $600K a year to reach 50k people twice a day? When it was free? That's a huge strain on companies that have come to rely on facebook, and it's inevitably going to drive some businesses under. It seems so short sighted. That link in the OP, dangerousminds.com would be willing to pay around $30k a year for their part, but because it's 20x that, they will abandon facebook instead. I bet the advertisers at fb are delighted with that, huh? fb have written off $30k a year right there. And that's one business.

And if this extends to the average nobody who wants to tell a stupid joke to his friends, honestly if only 15% of my friends read my status, then I won't bother. What's the point? So I'll fuck off. No big loss to fb since I don't click on ads or give them any money, but if everyone fucks off... obviously this is a problem.

They're shooting themselves in the face here imo.

[spoonitnow]

... is only passable by corporations with bottomless bankrolls.

It's not. See above post about the rates they're charging.

[boost]

It's not. See above post about the rates they're charging.

it is, (I can't believe I'm saying this, but..) reference Ong's post directly above yours.

Also, from the little I've read, it's not only blogs, small business, corporations, etc, but this is also happening to you and me. Sure, for us to have our status "promoted" so all our friends can see it may only cost us $5, but this still seems a bit absurd. We are what makes FB what it is. We give content, they provide a service. Now they want us to give them our content, AND pay them for the service? Maybe the symbiotic trade agreement between users and FB is simply not a viable business model, but charging users for status updates hardly seems like it will be a viable long term business plan either.

Furthermore, while I don't think FB should be responsible for this, throttling the reach of users could have detrimental results in the way the platform has been adopted by social movements. Look at the Arab Spring. What would that have been if all social media was setup to be pay per post? Social media has radically changed the way we communicate and interact with each other, and I do concede that it isn't Zuckerberg's responsibility to provide what we've come to expect, I think it's a bit irresponsible to drastically change the medium. It's sort of an example of how contrasted legality and morality can be.

[Galapogos]

Also, from the little I've read, it's not only blogs, small business, corporations, etc, but this is also happening to you and me. Sure, for us to have our status "promoted" so all our friends can see it may only cost us $5, but this still seems a bit absurd. We are what makes FB what it is. We give content, they provide a service. Now they want us to give them our content, AND pay them for the service?

All they've done here is added an option for you. They're not saying you have to pay $5 for people to hear about how you just had a great session at the gym. They're saying if you want everyone to know about the latest cancer baby 1million+ likes will save then you can pay $5 and it will have priority on people's news feeds.

Not paying just displays your stuff on the news feed as it always has been. Nothing has been taken away from the users in this instance.

[chemist]

But that's just the thing, when a monopoly exists, any increased or new fees are essentially taxes.

Is it Official that they are a monopoly?

Monopolies are illegal in most countries,
(unless run by the government of course, which is essentially tax).

So if a private company reaches monopoly status it can be closed down or broken up by law, or forcibly taken over and nationalised by the government.

Shouldn't be too long to wait for Faceblack Friday then.

[chemist]

facebook is likely to crumble eventually, but for what reason is not easily predictable. my guess is that eventually they will have to make a ton of updates, will do it wrong, then competitors (mostly google) will take over

i also dont ever use fb so i have no idea what im talking about. when i have used it i have found that it's crap relative to what it should be

I agree,
I don't use FB either.

But FB replaced MySpace, Geocities, Yahoo groups and others that went before it.
Like iphones replaced nokia and palmpilots, and this years fashion replaces last years fashion.

Whether it be technical, useful, fashionable or legal reasons, it is likely, like everything else, to be usurped in internet time.

[Pascal]

Not sure if this quote is correct but:

"Monopolies in the U.S. aren't actually illegal. However, they cannot use their monopoly power to gain price or other advantages thanks to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act."

You say that monopolies are "illegal in most countries" - is that true? It's definitely not true in Europe.

[Eric]

I still wish Google+ would take off. It's sooooo much better, with the one obvious exception being that the people you want to keep in touch with probably aren't there.

I don't think g+ will end up being used quite the same way as fb. I think g+ will be more like a hub for different google tools like maps, gmail and youtube.

[spoonitnow]

it is, (I can't believe I'm saying this, but..) reference Ong's post directly above yours.

He has no clue what he's talking about, and the numbers quoted in the original article are misleading as well. Do more research.

[spoonitnow]

Also stop obsessing about legality vs morality and projecting it onto every single thing that happens, jesus fucking christ.

[boost]

Also stop obsessing about legality vs morality and projecting it onto every single thing that happens, jesus fucking christ.

I think they are commonly confounded, leading to logical falsehoods. If society didn't tend to get this one wrong so often, then I wouldn't focus on it so much, jesus fucking christ.

[wufwugy]

I always wanted to see spoon vs boost

[BankItDrew]

not sure of any countries where monopolies are illegal

[OngBonga]

He has no clue what he's talking about, and the numbers quoted in the original article are misleading as well. Do more research.

Now that's just mean. Play me at chess again bitch.

[chemist]

Not sure if this quote is correct but:

"Monopolies in the U.S. aren't actually illegal. However, they cannot use their monopoly power to gain price or other advantages thanks to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act."

You say that monopolies are "illegal in most countries" - is that true? It's definitely not true in Europe.

True(ish), it is a bit like being naked in public isn't actually illegal but would usually be considered a breach of decency laws.

And in respect of monopolies and cartels whilst not explicitly illegal in themselves, they come under anti trust or competition laws.

European Union Competition Laws apply to all EU member states.
European Commission - Competition

[spoonitnow]

I always wanted to see spoon vs boost

Won't happen. I like boost too much.

[a500lbgorilla]

spoon is wrong on all points.

I didn't read any of them.

Because I knew he was wrong.

[jyms]

I notice they are also pumping newsfeeds with "suggested pages" now.

[spoonitnow]

spoon is wrong on all points.

I didn't read any of them.

Because I knew he was wrong.

Sounds like an Obamaphone sympathizer to me.