

Facebook Gets a Little Less “Free” for Members - acak
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/10/03/facebook-gets-a-little-less-free-for-members/

======
lutusp
I 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
I'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
> 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
And another urban myth takes a step towards becoming reality...

<http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gold-membership-trolling>

