Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Test Will Let You Message Strangers For $1

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the here's-a-dollar-poke-someone-who-cares dept.

Facebook 325

Spy Handler writes "According to PC Mag, 'Facebook is testing a feature that will let select users pay $1 to send messages to people with whom they have no connection on the social network. The $1 fee will open a thread with a non-Facebook friend. If that person replies to your note, you won't have to pay again to respond to them.' Facebook explained the test thus: 'Several commentators and researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to discourage unwanted messages and facilitate delivery of messages that are relevant and useful. This test is designed to address situations where neither social nor algorithmic signals are sufficient. For example, if you want to send a message to someone you heard speak at an event but are not friends with, or if you want to message someone about a job opportunity, you can use this feature to reach their Inbox. For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Charity? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42360619)

Seems to me that I should be able to let anybody contact me and I can opt in to people being charged a dollar to contact me. I don't want to make long lost friends pay to send me a message but I can see how some people might appreciate this. Also, Facebook isn't doing anything worth $1 to get this money and it's an (in)convenience fee so this money should go to a charity or something, right?

How does Facebook deserve this money?

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (5, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#42360667)

How does Facebook deserve this money?

Because they say so?

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360693)

They don't. Facebook are greedy cunts.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (4, Insightful)

crizh (257304) | about 2 years ago | (#42360851)

So am I.

They can send me as many unsolicited messages as they like if I get paid 50c for every one.

That's only fair, I think.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (3, Interesting)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#42360957)

I wish email were like that.

Pay me to read your spam FTW!

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361055)

Yes, how dare they try to monetize their free-to-use website.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (5, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#42360705)

I don't want to make long lost friends pay to send me a message

They can send you a friend request at no charge.

Seems to me that I should be able to let anybody contact me

I believe that's called making your e-mail address public.

How does Facebook deserve this money?

They're managing to convince people to pay it. Naturally!

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361149)

Seems to me that I should be able to let anybody contact me

I believe that's called making your e-mail address public.

In fact, part of this change is that Facebook will no longer let you share your contact info with only people who already know someone you've friended. More and more Facebook is dropping the "social" and becoming just another personal web page host site. Welcome back Geocities!

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360715)

They "deserve" it because it is their service and someone is willing to pay.

Seriously, though the word "deserve" doesn't belong in financial discussions where there are willing parties on both ends. I make four times as much as a social worker. Do I "deserve" more than my overworked sister-in-law who works with troubled youth? No. But I do. The fact is that my skill set is valued by the market more than hers. Sad fact of life. Tiger Woods makes eleventy-billion times what I do. For hitting a damn white ball with a stick. does he 'deserve' more than me? Nope. Sad fact of life.

If some idiot is willing to pay $1 to Facebook, then Facebook deserves that $1 and the guy paying it deserves to be $1 poorer.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#42361067)

They "deserve" it because it is their service and someone is willing to pay.

So if someone sends a helpful message to strangers offering to lengthen their pelvic protrusions, or induce mammary hyperplasia, Facebook gets laid... er paid? Very sound business strategy, I should say.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (2)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about 2 years ago | (#42361095)

if facebook is making $1 off of my inconvenience, facebook should pay me at least .50c of that money. They're basically sanctioning spam as long as the charge rates are high.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361119)

Saying "deserve" doesn't belong in business discussions is the greedy coward's way out of having morals and ethics.

duh (2, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about 2 years ago | (#42360719)

How does Facebook deserve this money?

As much as I am not a fan of Facebook (or on it at all), they run the hardware and wrote the software. You were the one willing to sign up to be their product and agree to their contract. Any right you had to complain already got clicked away.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360747)

How is providing a service that costs billions of dollars in infra structure not doing anything?

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360809)

If they are long lost friends, perhaps they should go the normal route and friend you instead.
This is opening a new path of communication and you have no moral ground to stand on to demand that it should be free or non-profit.
Don't like it? Then don't use it.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (2)

Fishead (658061) | about 2 years ago | (#42361107)

I had a former co-worker a few years back that was looking for a new job. I found the perfect job for him and sent it to him via facebook.

      Facebook gave me the ability to find his contact information via the town he was living in, his name, his profile picture, and some mutual friends. I was then able to start a conversation with him and have a few messages back and forth. Neither of us wanted the relationship to move beyond a few polite messages, and I probably would not have gone to the inconvenience of paying a dollar through facebook just to give him a job link that he may not have been interested in.

      Facebook provides a convenient way for me to communicate with friends, family, and strangers spread across North America. As soon as this service becomes less convenient due to fees or advertising, I imagine that we will all migrate over to the next big thing. I had hoped that G+ was it, but apparently isn't.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360899)

They do not, of course. It's all about the money. If they truly wanted to punish spammers, it would be a system more like this:

1. You pay $1 to send message to someone with no connection on your social network.

2. If that someone acknowledges that the message as legit (sender may be a long lost friend, or maybe a polite non-spam email), then you get $1 refunded, so it would not have cost you anything. Essentially, you go out on a limb with $1 to reach that person and let that person judge if you had bothered/spammed them.

3. If the recipient does not do anything, or even marks the message as spam, then the sender would lose that $1, and the $1 goes to the recipient, as he is being compensated for having to deal with spammers.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#42360947)

EXACTLY

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42360963)

How does Facebook deserve this money?

Because for some reason, they are the only ones who've been able to build up a lasting social network. They certainly weren't the only ones to try, or even the first ones, but somehow they succeeded in a field full of competition.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361015)

I don't want to make long lost friends pay to send me a message

They'll send you a friend request and if you remember them you'll accept it.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (5, Insightful)

Thomas Miconi (85282) | about 2 years ago | (#42361019)

How does Facebook deserve this money?

If you stay on Facebook, you implicitly acknowledge that they do, because you still judge the overall value of their service to be positive despite this added "inconvenience".

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (1)

eggstasy (458692) | about 2 years ago | (#42361075)

People can reply to your public wall posts, see contacts on your profile that you make public, the whole thing is a bit stupid really. Then again, Facebook is not known for its sound logic.

Re:So That's Opt In, Right? And That Goes to Chari (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361137)

Hey business, give that money you are making to charity.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360623)

Only idiots will do this. Suckerberg is great at pilfering money from them, too.

Ok...Questions (2)

Electrawn (321224) | about 2 years ago | (#42360627)

Since you are now selling access to me, why am I not getting a fiscal benefit as a result?

Is this different from Linkedin's paid messages as those are work/career context that has a precedent?

Is this different from Postal mail?

Re:Ok...Questions (3, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#42360723)

Is this different from Linkedin's paid messages as those are work/career context that has a precedent?

One is on Facebook and the other is on LinkedIn.

Is this different from Postal mail?

The search feature is different, delivery is faster, the cost is higher, and in the end the person doesn't know where you live.

Re:Ok...Questions (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#42360863)

Facebook's problem is that my LinkedIn world and my Facebook world will forever remain separate. Furthermore, anyone who links their personal life and their work life is asking for a whole lot of trouble (yes, my LI and FB handles are different). I know that Facebook is looking to justify their $40 IPO, but this is just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping against all odds that it sticks.

Re:Ok...Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360865)

and in the end the person doesn't know where you live.

Return addresses are not required on postal mail. Just FYI.

Re:Ok...Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360743)

Do you also demand that the postal office is paying you part of the postage for every mail they deliver to you?
Or that the phone companies pay you for every call and every SMS?
They are not cutting of any communication path, they are opening a new one where it is pretty much guaranteed that the person sending you a message has something important for you, or at least important for them to get to you.

Something Important (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#42361025)

They are not cutting of any communication path, they are opening a new one where it is pretty much guaranteed that the person sending you a message has something important for you

A 25% cut out of the 50 million dollars their late father (who was killed by his enemies) left for them.

Re:Ok...Questions (5, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about 2 years ago | (#42360771)

Since you are now selling access to me, why am I not getting a fiscal benefit as a result?

When you pay the grocery store for a tin of nuts, the nuts do not get a cut.

Re:Ok...Questions (4, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#42360993)

There's a lot more nuts on Facebook than will fit in a tin.

Re:Ok...Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361153)

no but the producer of the nuts do..... the store only keeps their (relatively small in grocery) markup...

so facebook should keep 10% and give the rest to the recipient to buy their time to deal with the spam.

Re:Ok...Questions (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#42360903)

Since you are now selling access to me, why am I not getting a fiscal benefit as a result?

Is this different from Linkedin's paid messages as those are work/career context that has a precedent?

Is this different from Postal mail?

At least for your last question, "yes, this is different than postal mail." Postal mail is regulated by the federal government. This is not.

Re:Ok...Questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360981)

Since you are now selling access to me, why am I not getting a fiscal benefit as a result?

I dunno. I may not be getting a direct fiscal benefit, per se, but there's a potential emotional benefit here. In that every time I get one of these messages, I can smile to myself and know that some moron actually wasted an outlandish amount of money to send me ONE message, every time they send one, and then feel better about myself.

Legalized SPAM (1)

JordanArendt (164158) | about 2 years ago | (#42360629)

see subject.

Re:Legalized SPAM (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#42360955)

I'll be happy with it if the recipient gets a 70% cut.

Then it can become an alternative way to support artists, coders, whoever.

Clumsy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360639)

... and pathetic.

There is no brave new world. There is only the clumsy pathetic world.

Bill Gates (2, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | about 2 years ago | (#42360641)

Someone copied Bill Gates' 1995 book "The Road Ahead," where he predicted charging fees to the senders.

Sounds like a good idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360643)

... as long as that $1 goes to the person being spammed. I expect facebook will pocket it though. In which case it's just pay to spam.

So, If I pay FB $1, can I block those people? (0)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#42360645)

Brilliant strategy on Facebook's part. They make money on both sides.

Re:So, If I pay FB $1, can I block those people? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360875)

You don't have to pay facebook anything to "block" these messages. All you have to do is stop logging in to facebook.

Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (5, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#42360651)

The suggestion was to charge a tenth of a penny per email. For regular folks who email, that works up to less than a penny per day. (No fees for business emails from private or hosted exchange servers, of course.) This would discourage spam emails and mass marketings from public accounts (although it wouldn't stop spam from zombie email accounts on private domains.)

A dollar per message should be enough to discourage irresponsible spamming.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360763)

Yeah, I always liked that idea myself. It's the kind of solution that an economist would come up with.

Of course, there would always be people with legitimate business for whom that wouldn't work out - they have a mailing list with 300 people and don't want to put up a web site for privacy and administration reasons. But every proposal is going to have some drawbacks, so I still think it's valid.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42360765)

$1 to guarantee that your message appears to be from a contact of your target instead of "unknown?" That's worth a $500 scam because they just upped the likelihood of it succeeding significantly.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (1)

cormander (1273812) | about 2 years ago | (#42360821)

This might be true with most spamming, but in certain industries, only having to spend a dollar for an almost guaranteed read of the message is really, really cheap. Hire up a legions of human spammers in India to start sending facebook messages to sell something expensive. Somebody's gonna do it.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360825)

Sounds like its time for the ol spam checklist

http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

So lets see you already have someone who does not care about others sending things out. I forsee higher credit card fraud in the future... Remember the spammers are not the ones paying the bills. Their customers are and the people who are stuck with their junk. So they would just charge more to spam. They do not care about who they hurt. Just so they can skim some off the middle. For some spam runs they only need a hit rate of less than one percent to make huge profits.

Get a reasonably popular person and FB could make some decent money off it. Say 50 emails a day or about 18k per year? Then we can have arguments about how the more popular people subsidize the less popular ones.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 years ago | (#42360877)

The suggestion was to charge a tenth of a penny per email. For regular folks who email, that works up to less than a penny per day. (No fees for business emails from private or hosted exchange servers, of course.) This would discourage spam emails and mass marketings from public accounts (although it wouldn't stop spam from zombie email accounts on private domains.)

Unsolicited SMS messages cost money and are illegal: spammers still use them.
Unsolicited paper mail costs money (much more than a tenth of a penny): spammers still use it.

How exactly is charging for sending email going to stop spam before the cost is high enough to have a significant detrimental effect on the rest of us too?

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (2)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42360881)

A dollar per message should be enough to discourage irresponsible spamming.

You must be kidding yourself. :-)

$1 for an email that is guaranteed to get delivered? Methinks plenty of advertisers will sign up, and not just vanilla kind either...

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#42360895)

The suggestion was to charge a tenth of a penny per email. For regular folks who email, that works up to less than a penny per day. (No fees for business emails from private or hosted exchange servers, of course.) This would discourage spam emails and mass marketings from public accounts (although it wouldn't stop spam from zombie email accounts on private domains.)

A dollar per message should be enough to discourage irresponsible spamming.

A dollar per message is a lot cheaper than paying for printing and postage on bulk mail junk mail, even with the discounted bulk postage rate.

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42360985)

Why would exchange be so specially blessed? Why not postfix, or sendmail?
What would companies that send out notifications to clients. partners, customers do?

Not spam, think "This is to bring to your attention that Monday Feb 32 2013 from the hours of 1am to 11pm a technician will arrive to install your shark tank. Thank you for your purchase".

Re:Reminds me of the old "email tax" idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361131)

A dollar per message should be enough to encourage the use of phone calls again.

A $1 message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360657)

> For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them.

"Important" meaning "worth $1".

I have an important message for you. Send me $1 if you want to hear it.

Perverts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360661)

Seems like a way for Facebook to make money off perverts who want to message a girl. Like those pay dating sites....

So.... (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#42360683)

If I can already send message to most people I'm not connected to, as long as they dont have their profile set super secret mode....this does almost nothing. So I can only assume then that the main point of this "feature" is that it WILL go to those super secret ultra private profiles, thus invalidating the settings and desires of said person.

So ya. Spammer paradise.

So, for a million dollars... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360687)

... I can send a million messages. Stupid. A million messages is worth $1 or so to me. You would be surprised how FEW respond to my tests. I've spammed every person on a number of dating sites, for instance (as part of my private experiments), and the feedback is pathetic.

$1 for a message is insane, just like the prices for all ads. I don't know how anyone makes a return on any form of ads. It doesn't add up at all.

Re:So, for a million dollars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361041)

So in other words you, a spammer, are deterred from using this feature by the cost? Looks like Facebook got that part right, at least.

Re:So, for a million dollars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361111)

If you're experimenting with spamming, I'd suggest that you switch to experimenting with drugs like decent people do.

No. (5, Funny)

grenadeh (2734161) | about 2 years ago | (#42360697)

Wrong. Try again. Facebook has always been and should forever remain free, and you should have been able to message everyone regardless of connection in the first place. Stupid.

Re:No. (2, Insightful)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#42361043)

Who elected you to the board of directors and gave you the right to dictate how and whether they can make money off the business they created in order to make money?

Re:No. (0, Flamebait)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#42361045)

Ladies and gentleman, the textbook example of the Entitlement Mentality.

From the desk of barrister Facebook (1)

sinij (911942) | about 2 years ago | (#42360729)

Dear Facebook Friend,

Naturally, you will be amply rewarded for your assistance by retaining a percentage of the funds transferred....

You should be able to set your own price (1)

ZipK (1051658) | about 2 years ago | (#42360733)

For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them.

One of the most important messages that a stranger could send me is "ka-ching." That is, let me set my own price and keep the proceeds.

Desperate to make money (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42360741)

I realise they make money through ads but I suspect that won't last so they're seemingly looking for anyway to milk people. Sure it'll stop bulk spam but $1 is nothing to get your chance to be a total creep to some strange woman. On the bright side if creeping goes on that should kill FB.

Re:Desperate to make money (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#42360857)

I realise they make money through ads but I suspect that won't last so they're seemingly looking for anyway to milk people. Sure it'll stop bulk spam but $1 is nothing to get your chance to be a total creep to some strange woman. On the bright side if creeping goes on that should kill FB.

$1 is pretty cheap considering how much bulk mailers pay for printing and postage to send you stuff via snail mail.

Translation (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42360749)

"Several commentators and researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to discourage unwanted messages and facilitate delivery of messages that are relevant and useful."

Translation

"Money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money."

Give me the option (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#42360751)

Give me the option to turn off the receipt of all that are not from my Facebook friends, regardless of how much money Facebook is making off the sending of those messages.

Why can't I name my own price? (1, Offtopic)

RealGene (1025017) | about 2 years ago | (#42360769)

My time is worth more than $1.00.
Let me set the price, FB can take 10%.

Damm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360777)

There goes my peace and quiet. One of the nice things NOT being on FaceLock and Twatter is that I can say, 'sorry I don't subscribe to that', then they say, 'how can I contact you?' as if other mediums don't exist.
Now these people can send me stuff from a service I clearly don't want anything to do with.

Please Facebook, let me block this feature.

What about the main page Tag-line? (1)

a-puredot (881392) | about 2 years ago | (#42360783)

Facebook main webpage still says "It's free and will remain free"

Re:What about the main page Tag-line? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42360965)

"But some things will be freer than others."

Corporate Freedom of Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360787)

One USD at a time.

Thus continues the nickle and dime death march of the US working class.

Opt Out Available for receivers? (2)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#42360789)

I hope there's a way to block this. For example, the following $1 message comes to mind:

"Hi, I'm the one who was sent to prison due to your testimony about me repeatedly beating your daughter while she lived with me. I just wanted to let you know that I've been released and am thinking of you. Much love!"

Re:Opt Out Available for receivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360871)

Actually, this probably could be turned into his parole officer. Its better you receive it than not know.

Re:Opt Out Available for receivers? (2)

raehl (609729) | about 2 years ago | (#42360883)

That's the kind of message I'd like to get through.

Re:Opt Out Available for receivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360937)

Ah, yes, by blocking these messages you will surely prevent anyone (who already knows you) from making a threat.

Bulk discount (3, Interesting)

space_jake (687452) | about 2 years ago | (#42360823)

I'm assuming there will be some sort of bulk discount for businesses.

Economies of fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360829)

In Soviet Facebook, stalkers block you!

Translation (4, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#42360839)

Before: Facebook keeps your contact information private only allowing people to contact you that you have approved.

Now: Facebook keeps your contact information private only allowing people to contact you that you have approved or have paid us.

Yeah, there is no way that new policy won't be abused.

One condition. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360855)

I'd be all for it. .. If I had an option to pay a dollar, and give the original sender a nasty electric shock in reply. :)

Facebook makes two bucks. I'm happy. Everyone's happy!

So facebook has recreated email... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360885)

...at $1 a pop.

Innovative.

Let me make sure I've got this right... (1)

alleycat0 (232486) | about 2 years ago | (#42360887)

So Facebook, you want to be the preeminent social media site, but you want me to pay for every message sent to my non-FB friends? Let me know how that works out for you...

Re:Let me make sure I've got this right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361135)

It worked pretty well for them when you couldn't send messages to non-FB friends, why should it work less well when you can't send messages to non-FB friends without paying.

Nice marketing spin. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42360905)

On the surface this announcement sounds like Facebook is providing a beneficial feature to keep strangers from sending you messages which I didn't know was a widespread problem.

I guess it sounds better than Facebook announcing that they are selling access to your inbox for a $1 to solicitors who don't need or can't afford the the high-volume advertising service. I'm sure they will eventually provide volume discounts.

Think about it... who will want or need to pay that dollar to send you a message?

Are images allowed? (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42360907)

So for $1 can I or can I not send random folks goatse?

Because that might just be worth creating a facebook profile for.

Malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360911)

Cool. Maybe people will start paying attention to the scams/likejacking/malware they click on and authorize, since it can send out mass messages that cost them money. "I don't know what happened, I clicked on this article that said I had to 'like' it to see a funny picture of how a dad punished his daughter, and now Facebook says I owe them $1200 for messages to strangers!"

Probably won't work as intended (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#42360913)

$1 per initial message might seem like a deterrent but with a good result set from data mining various sources a company could establish a viable subset of facebook users likely to be swayed by subsequent promotional offers. Just takes a hook to gather a response from the first message so that additional messages can be sent free, like - respond to this so that your name is entered into a free draw to win Product X. If it's well targeted it'll pay for itself in the long term.

Stolen Credit Cards... (5, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#42360917)

I expect spammers to start using stolen credit cards to send spam. In the end it will cost the CC owners and their banks money while FB most likely gets to keep the money. Depends if the banks force a charge back or not. Sometimes they do and sometimes they write it off and wait fro the government to give them money.

"Important"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360921)

For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them.'

You're using that word "important" but I don't think you know what it means...

This Sounds Terrific (1)

dhermann (648219) | about 2 years ago | (#42360925)

Dear Facebook,

I love this idea. I don't mind you selling the ability to contact me at all; don't listen to these other internet clowns. Now, I can't guarantee I'll read each and every message, but I will look at their subject lines. A glance, that's all I can promise. Is this okay? Great. Great. I am loving this. Will you deposit the $1 into my bank account every time I get a message, or once a month like eBay does?

I cannot think of a way that this couldn't work out well for me.

-Dan

Gold mine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42360971)

"Click here to unsubscribe from future messages."

Person clicks there, causing a reply to the unsolicited ad to be sent. Consequently, future unsolicited ads are free. Sell them for a useful price.

Innovations in junk mail (1)

rplante (1373593) | about 2 years ago | (#42360975)

Who would be willing to pay $1 to send an unsolicited message? How about $10K to send 10,000 messages? It sounds like Facebook is trying to develop a new marketing channel.

Correction to the Submission (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about 2 years ago | (#42360987)

'Several researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to raise Facebook's wallowing stock price'

There, fixed that for them.

targeted advertising (2)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 2 years ago | (#42360997)

so basically instead of blocking spam they are just forcing these people to do targeted advertising. With all the information advertisers have on users this should be no problem

you ins3nsitive $clod! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361035)

Real name issue (1)

CrowdedBrainzzzsand9 (2000224) | about 2 years ago | (#42361053)

It's hard to pay $1 if your FB account is under a fake name. One more way to pressure FBers to use a real name.

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361063)

It will inform users that their message is about to be delivered to the "Other" folder, and give them to option to pay $1 to have it directed to the Inbox.

Whoop-de-frickin'-do

Oblig (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42361071)

It's about Instagram [xkcd.com] , but applies too. Living in a walled garden is nice until the gardener wakes up drunk and want to make changes.

whats my cut??? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#42361147)

If in fact i decide that the person is worth talking to i might decide to "wave" my cut but How Much of that $1 do i get???

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?