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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
When the user's perceived value received falls short of their perceived risk of releasing personal information, they should rightly be upset. And probably quit.
But in terms of brands using Facebook, I'm not sure the same contract applies. They get valuable exposure using the infrastructure, but contribute nothing of value to Facebook. I have a hard time believing ordinary users would complain if all brand pages were suddenly dropped. Those users would continue to share branded content organically if they so desired. I don't believe that a one-sided beneficiary has much room to complain at all.
If your business model is selling shit given to you for free, you'll have to find a new way to make money once your source changes his mind. One way to enter into a mutually beneficial contract is to purchase ads (or promoted posts). If they cost too much, then they've lost your business. But they never really had it in the first place...
This is by far the most annoying thing for me. That and the likelihood that most people don't realize that setting is there, and assume they're getting posts in chronological order.
EDIT: my solution, btw, is to make a bunch of my friends "close friends" and set Facebook to send me email notifications for updates from them. Bypasses the newsfeed, brings it back to email, where I like it.
And if any brand is overwhelming the newsfeed, it becomes pretty easy to make the decision to unlike their page
That's a funny way to characterize a SaaS service. They make service decisions for you all the time. Don't like Timeline? Too bad. Want the 2007 version instead of the current one? Too bad.
A Software as a Service service?
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.
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.
Unless you pay the vig. Spam away as long as Zuck gets a taste.
You can't have it both ways.
It really is a bait and switch and I'm surprised there isn't MORE outrage about 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.
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.
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.)
First, let's unpack your justification a little – you actually offer two claims: 1) You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. and 2) You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account.
To the first: most of us may not be their customers, but there's clearly an exchange of value going in both directions. I give them my attention, demographic information, etc. which is valuable to them as it then allows them to charge their customers for access to me and my info, in all the various ways. In return, I get access to FB and all that goes with it... but I'm not just a user I'm a supplier. As such, there's still an agreement, both formal and informal, going on here.
The formal agreement is the one you allude to in your second claim – the TOS that most of us don't remember even agreeing to. That matters a lot from a legal standpoint. They're clear to do whatever they want, legally, within reason. (I'm not trying to go deep on this sub-point).
But much more important is the informal agreement between FB and their suppliers (err "users"). That's the stuff that brand equity is made up of – and the brand promise, the value to users is the ability to keep up with their friends and know that their friends can keep up with them.
FB has begun to renege on that promise – and as such, they'll lose brand equity and the value in the eyes of their users.
Call it a bait and switch or don't, but the effect is still the same.
I can understand people who use Facebook personally feeling overwhelmed when its features keep changing, though I still think they ought to realize that they don't own their Facebook pages or the content on them, and talk and act accordingly.
But a business using Facebook for PR, such as the OP of this thread, ought to understand that they are taking advantage of a service, and if the cost of using that service becomes greater than the benefit, they should look for another source for that service.
Businesses, on the other hand, are a less gray area, IMHO, and I'd say I agree completely with what you've written here.
Unfortunately, you're neither of those two. If you have an account on Facebook, you're their product.
A lot of the disappointment here seems to be a result of ignoring this relation.
The problem is that the market is flooded with suppliers so we have very little individual leverage, but we do have the choice to leave the market. Done en masse, it could well change the dynamics of the equation.
Still, my point is that supplier is the accurate term. Unless of course you mean to say that FB is in the business of human trafficking.. then, well... um..
--