Originally Posted by
Neukifly
I don't really care about Facebook (I'm not a member) but was just curious: Could it be that Facebook is struggling to manage itself as a social network, so has allowed the presence of more Ads (at the expense of their own members) to the point of intrusion? If this isn't the case (and I bet it's not), then obviously Facebook must be doing this solely for profit reasons, and in the process, simply testing to see how far they can push their members.
The real question is: What would it take to turn a crippling number of members away from Facebook? It's one thing to complain about Ads on a site; it's another to be proactive and stand by what you believe.
With me and the use of free sites, it's simple: I tolerate the presence of Ads as long as they do not prevent me from accessing the features of a site. I'm not paying for it, so the least I can do is tolerate the presence of Ads. If a site were to breach my level of tolerance, then I'd simply cease my support of that site (i.e. not use it at all) instead of rant about its policy on Ads. I might even set up a boycott outside the site and encourage people to make a stand: to draw the line between what's necessary and what's intrusive. Any site can gain popularity in a matter of weeks, but can just as easily lose its status; such is the power of influence over the internet (and sadly, the weakness of people).
Otherwise, to complain about the presence of Ads on sites, however instrusive, and yet still use them is no better than being a hipocrite.
Bookmarks