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 Testing $100 Fee To Mail Mark Zuckerberg

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the cost-of-sending-messages dept.

Facebook 228

iComp writes with a story about how it will cost you $100 to message Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. "Got something you'd like to say to Mark Zuckerberg? The Facebook CEO still maintains a profile on the social networking site he founded, but beginning on Friday, sending him a personal message could cost you. Mashable was the first to notice that some users who weren't otherwise on the Behoodied One's Friends list were being asked to pony up before they could send a message to his Inbox, to the tune of $100 a pop. As El Reg reported in December, Facebook has been conducting a limited test of a feature that requires users to pay a fee to send messages to people with whom they have no direct connection. The idea is that the type of users who like to send spam, hate speech, and otherwise frivolous messages typically aren't willing to pay for the privilege. Impose a fee – however small – and they probably won't bother."

cancel ×

228 comments

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

Laugh (5, Funny)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576391)

I'll pay $1000 to slap him silly.

Re:Laugh (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576441)

How much to shit in his mouth?

Re:Laugh (5, Insightful)

tanujt (1909206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576447)

It's free. Just delete your facebook profile.

Re:Laugh (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576567)

I deleted my account in 2008, which I only held for about a week. Following the correct procedure at the time, it wasn't easy to deactivate and delete then, but I did manage it.

A friend recently informed me my account is appearing on his profile again.

Re:Laugh (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576643)

FACE BOOK [dangerousminds.net]

Re:Laughing harder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576619)

how much to have rick mercer dress him up like a girl
and put stephen harper image with his arm around him

Re:Laugh (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576731)

This sounds like a great way to make sure only the real lunatics email him. Filter out all the people with only a low/medium hatred.

Re:Laugh (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577295)

I thought you could e-mail anyone to their [nickname]@facebook.com

Re:Laugh (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577373)

There is a separate high-priority inbox for people that you are connected to. Paying also routes your message into the high priority inbox.

Re:Laugh (4, Funny)

santax (1541065) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576977)

With a large trout I am going to assume?

Fucky fart (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576393)

I just shot a fart out of my very own fuckyhole, and no one else's. What say you?

Re:Fucky fart (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576487)

I just shot a fart out of my very own fuckyhole, and no one else's. What say you?

I say that your mental age is 14.

Re:Fucky fart (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577445)

I'd say I just shot a load of cum into your fuckyhole.

It's one thing for him to sell access (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576395)

It's his company, so any money made benefits him, but when they start selling access to other people without them making anything, it just doesn't work. Now, perhaps if they allowed people to sign up for this service, and do something like Apple where there's a 70/30 split, then maybe you have a recipe for success.

Great business policy (2, Funny)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576883)

I think it's to reduce the complaints for how crappy his service is.

Re:Great business policy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577417)

Yeah, it's "crappy". With over 1 billion active users every month.

What is it with neckbeards and their total inability to figure out the difference between "crappy" and "best social site ever made"?

Re:Great business policy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577529)

"most used" and "best" are not necessarily the same thing.

Re:It's one thing for him to sell access (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577139)

Facebook is public.

it's not his company anymore.

Re:It's one thing for him to sell access (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577293)

He's an employee and a major stock holder. Selling access to himself = more money for Facebook = more money for him. Selling access to me = more money for Facebook = not more money for me.

Facebook Testing $100 Fee To Jail Mark Zuckerberg (1, Offtopic)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576407)

That's what I read, at first.

No, it doen't make sense. :)

Re:Facebook Testing $100 Fee To Jail Mark Zuckerbe (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576587)

No. If you were going to charge to Jail Mark Zuckerberg, you'd never want to set such a low price.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576409)

Keep scrambling for revenue, failbook

Trolls will do what Trolls do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576411)

$100 won't really stop people. I guess you could argue it would cut down on some, but people really do have disposable income to be able to power through it anyway.

Re:Trolls will do what Trolls do. (0)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576503)

I think the troll fail would be anything sent would just be /dev/null'd without him seeing it. So other than making FB rich, no point. "See that goofy kid? Lets make fun of him... I know, when he's at gym class we'll sneak a couple bucks into his wallet, I'm sure that'll be embarrassing" Fail.

IF your "receipt" for your $100 transaction would be a pic of him holding up a printout of your message or a guaranteed personalized response of some sort, then I'd start a fund to take donations to send him a goatse as a picture message or any other similar trollish pic. Or if it has to be text there's probably some fanfic pr0n text story or something like that.

One way to troll would be on the transmit side instead of receive. "Hey Mr National USA Politician, it cost me $100 to send you a text copy of the Constitution, clearly you have never read it and have no idea whats in it".

Re:Trolls will do what Trolls do. (4, Interesting)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576735)

Reminds me of the diamond ring item in Team Fortress 2. Costs a hundred bucks and when you uses it you essentially propose to another player in front of everyone logged in. To this day (like a year or more after inception) you still see people using it for memes or general trolling and what have you.

Thanks! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576421)

I'll just use e-mail instead.

Re:Thanks! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576667)

I'll just use e-mail instead.

mark.zuckerberg@fb.com

mzuckerberg@fb.com

or just dial the weasel directly...

(650) 543-4800 x9825

They should read their own front page (5, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576429)

"It’s free and always will be."

Re:They should read their own front page (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576529)

"It's free and always will be."

MZ must like his privacy -- imagine that.

The facebook is still free, but the "cool" (i.e. rich) people will exist in a separate world. Almost surprising it took so long to separate the first and economy class. I am guessing MZ will never need to pay to message anyone.

Re:They should read their own front page (3, Insightful)

cupantae (1304123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576707)

"cool" (i.e. famous)

FTFY. Famous people are those who are known by many more people than they know personally. It is entirely reasonable that such people should need greater protection from unsolicited messaging.

Re:They should read their own front page (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576839)

It should be, but someone who has claimed that privacy is dead and has a business model based on that assumption is not in a position to claim such protection without being a total hypocrite. And this is about privacy, having privacy means being left alone when you want to be left alone. If he can claim $100 for receiving a message I would like to claim $1, just 1% of wat Mark asks, for every fact about my browsing habits Facebook records, for every connection they make with data I can or cannot see, and probably a few more things. That should be a nice source of income.

Re:They should read their own front page (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577367)

That would be nice but it wouldn't be Facebook. At Facebook you are the product, you always have been, and you likely always will be.

A system which enabled people to be reimbursed for data aggregation and marketing based on their personal data may be possible with a distributed social network with PGP under the hood (uses have responsibility to protect their own private keys but they can pass this responsibility on to a business of their choosing and pay a tiny fee). I've not kept up with such projects but maybe FOAF would do. For sending money in such an environment, Ripple may be the best fit, but given the current state of the project and the questionable social connectedness of a data aggregation company it would be unwise to completely ignore Bitcoin. One bonus in using these technologies is that the annoying requirement of needing to secure ones private keys neatly overlaps with the same requirement of the social network. A client would allow you to make you information freely available to you friends (different info for different groups) but backed up by cryptography so the only easy way for someone else to get the data would be for them to ask your friends (no technical solution). The same client would make it easy for you to monetize your data, allowing strangers to buy access for an amount your comfortable with (more for new data, less for old, probably exponentially decaying price). A data aggregation business would decide whether or not its worth buying your data and, if so, how old it should be. Similarly, you could collect money from people sending you messages; useful for famous people, but you and I might be better off setting this to 0 (or maybe near 0 to help fight spam).

Note: The whole network would probably benefit from a distributed online storage solution based on encryption (with personally held keys) for privacy. After all, you data is for your eyes only until you add some friends or set it for sale and, after that, should be available to those 24/7. A Tahoe LAFS node sounds like the way to go but the size of the node and imbalance between people wanting storage and people providing it would necessitate a built in funding system (ripple or bitcoin again).

It's possible such a system will never come to fruition but I'm willing to bet that a small group of enthusiastic crypto-anarchists will build one between 5 and 15 years from now (probably by extending the most popular distributed social platform and storage solutions with cryptocurrency micropayments). Even more likely, no one will join this network because even with the promise of real control over your own data AND the ability to turn directly, instantly, and automatically into cash your share of the huge amount of money that Facebook makes will not be enough to overcome the network effect.

Re:They should read their own front page (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576597)

Define "it".

Does it cost anything to sign up for an FB account? Probably not.

I think having FB introduce you to people you who don't know you for a fee is a reasonable offer.

Re:They should read their own front page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577429)

You would think its reasonable you fascist.

I've read your posts before, you would think its reasonable to charge the peons to talk to the lord of the manor.

Re:They should read their own front page (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576695)

Google are such liars! They claim that Gmail is free but they charge you to run advertisements. And they make you pay for their server appliance hardware.

Re:They should read their own front page (1)

chromas (1085949) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576721)

That's what Dennis Miller said about NetZero.

I'd pay $100 (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576807)

but only if Zuckerberg would respond back.

Beautiful (1, Interesting)

tanujt (1909206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576431)

Next up: Want to say something against the current establishment in your daily status updates? Just pay $1.59* and exercise your right to free speech!

*A small fee to cover the overhead to Facebook, Inc. for licking your local congressman's ass to compensate for your brazen use of the First Amendment.

Re:Beautiful (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576571)

Just pay $1.59* and exercise your right to free speech!
... compensate for your brazen use of the First Amendment.

Oh, come on. I dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but what "free speech" and what "first amendment" are you talking about??

Facebook is a private enterprise. Until they are a government agency (not yet), free speech/1st amendment does not apply. Totally irrelevant

This might not even be a money grabbing move as much as "rich people should have their privacy" despite being on Facebook. M.Z. had one of his family Thanksgiving photos published against his wishes recently -- he was pretty annoyed about that.

Re:Beautiful (1)

tanujt (1909206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576627)

Use of hyperbole and sarcasm for driving a point home is what the post an example of.

And yes, I know that sounds like Yoda.

Re:Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576737)

Use of hyperbole and sarcasm for driving a point home is what the post an example of.

Hyperbole and sarcasm are for boldering weak arguments. If you've got something worth saying, just say it next time. Don't make people guess which parts you mean and which you don't mean. That's silly and it lets you off the hook when you're wrong.

Re:Beautiful (2)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577161)

I think you meant embiggening instead of boldering.

Re:Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577455)

LMAO I think you need to bolder your argument there, short bus.

Re:Beautiful (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577213)

I don't think most people who mention the first amendment to the US constitution on Slashdot have much idea of what it says or what it means. They only really get three words "freedom of speech" and extrapolate wildly from there. The "Congress shall make no law" part gets completely lost. And that's saying nothing about the supreme-court-approved exceptions, nor the many supreme-court-tacitly-approved exceptions.

Re:Beautiful (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577527)

How much of Facebook does the government have to own/run before it becomes liable to the first amendment?

My prediction (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576433)

I predict that Slashdot groupthinkers will bash the idea of ever paying for Facebook messages as greedy, evil capitalism at its worst, etc., even though they overwhelmingly supported charging a fee to send emails to cut down on mass spam when that idea was being thrown around a few years back.

Re:My prediction (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577505)

Got no need to bash it - hell, I think he's allowed to do it all he wants. His servers, his rules.

Not sure anyone here ever agreed to charge $100/email during the previous conversations you refer to, though...

Politeness? (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576439)

I assumed it was only polite to message someone who you like to add as friend, before or while you click 'friend'.
Now I assume I have just to click 'friend'. Albeit most of the people I know on FB ... I just know, they are not my friends ofc.

This is it: the beginning of the end (5, Interesting)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576445)

When you scramble to monetize your product by pimping off your CEO you know it's downhill from here on.

Next:
- for 5 euros they will attach the head of one of your friends on a porn star
- charge 1 cent every time you use your FB login with another site
- charge $5 to add 50 new friends for the socially inept or people you need to get that extra mile
- for $1,000 bump someone off FB with the same name and get exclusive rights for 12 months
- $5 for audio greetings, $10 for video
-$1 to send a text message

Re:This is it: the beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577011)

charge the FBI $100 for full access to FB profiles

Re:This is it: the beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577363)

- The annoyance factor... PRICELESS

funny (3, Insightful)

lapm (750202) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576449)

100$ to send him mail? After all that 100$ dosent even garantie you reply from him...

Re:funny (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576537)

My guess is that this is some kind of clumsy way of trying to get in on the LinkedIn gravy train. LinkedIn has a setup where you have to pay for a premium account to be able to message people you aren't directly connected to, and they actually pull in quite a bit of cash through that, because recruiters and various other kinds of businesspeople will pony up to send those messages.

Re:funny (0)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576873)

FB already requires a $1 now to send someone outside of your circle a private message. Well, it will still be sent to them without the money, but it will go into their "other" box and not show a notification, but no one goes to their "spam" folders anymore, especially not on FB.

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576933)

LinkedIn also has a hole where spammers can send LinkedIn notifications. LinkedIn wants so badly to be like Facebook that Facebook might as well buy them.

Re:funny (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576591)

100$ to send him mail? After all that 100$ dosent even garantie you reply from him...

Of course not
You would need to pay at least $500 to guarantee receiving a reply from him. But with a monthly $5,000 fee, that price can be knocked down to $150.

Re:funny (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576617)

Forget reply, it doesnt even guarantee that he will read it. For all we know, he has some intern read his facebook messages and reply to it.

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576711)

"100$ to send him mail?"

For less than 50 cents I can get a public servant to deliver a written message personally to his house.

Re:funny (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576783)

Ya, I am sure his inbox already has a few hundred thousand unread messages from non-friends. I think the real story hear is that it is for all non-friends to anyone, not just him.

Let me set my spam fees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576471)

If your fees are lower than the expected value, there is no incentive not to spam. I want the option to add an extra surcharge.

Guarantee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576477)

If he's guaranteed to read it, I'd pay to send "go fuck yourself".

Already Sent a Message for Free (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576527)

I've already sent a message by not having an account.

Re:Already Sent a Message for Free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576699)

I've already sent a message by not having an account.

I tried that with Slashdot. Didn't work.

people that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576539)

use facebook are already idiots and people that pay for it are even larger ones...
you're a tool for life invasion and advertisement...

Oh yeah? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576553)

I just read a relevant quote on this matter in the past few days, but I don't recall where. Let me try to paraphrase:

No one is so far beneath you that you cannot learn something from them, and no one is so far above you that you need permission to communicate with them.

Anyone know the source?

Re:Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577507)

Well, I am pretty sure it was not Mark Zuckerberg

The Best Kickstarter (2)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576583)

Let's raise $10k to get 100 people to send Zuckerberg GNAA spam.

I have a scheme testing $0.43 fee to mail Zuckerb. (3, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576633)

I figure my scheme will lose $15.9 B a year, but I think people might go for it.

Re:I have a scheme testing $0.43 fee to mail Zucke (1)

bigtrike (904535) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576679)

It's a better business plan than some dot-coms. At least you have some sort of revenue model.

Pssst.. (2)

raehl (609729) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576911)

It's $0.45. $0.46 come Jan 27.

Attention economy (4, Insightful)

Dainutehvs (936606) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576675)

I like the concept. Actually I think it is brilliant. There are gazillions of things that fight over our attention every day just as we open our eyes. We live in constant noise of commercials/e-mails/calls/banners/meeting-requests/u-name-it. And the most efficient way to reach a person is to be loud. And annoying. And it costs virtually nothing. And intermediaries - ad agencies etc. are those who take the most advantage and profit from this mess. But with this concept - everybody can charge for for their attention Directly . Maybe mr. everybodys attention starts to be Valued . IIn that case it would be like giving the power back to the people!

Re:Attention economy (1)

dubbayu_d_40 (622643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576749)

I agree. But I think the key will be giving the recipient a cut.

I can do it for less.... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576681)

Certified mail is a lot cheaper and will get his attention faster than someone paying $100 so his personal assistant will see the message.

Re:I can do it for less.... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576733)

And it won't be a personal assistant (or a PA's PA) that opens and reads his physical mail because...?

Re:I can do it for less.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577187)

Because you can say that only the named recipient can sign for the mail by adding restricted delivery. It is not uncommon for legal documents to be sent certified with adult delivery and restricted delivery certified. That way you can get the best shot of saying that the service rules were satisfied (only if personal service fails) because the certified mail with adult delivery can be signed for by any adult who lives at the address and with restricted delivery, they will make multiple attempts to deliver to the named addressee before sending it back and only that addressee can sign for it (or their designated agent at a large business and other certain places but you can get around that by sending it to their home because they usually forget to set one for there).

Re:I can do it for less.... (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577223)

Because Zuckerberg has this really awesome letter opener he's been itching to use.

Re:I can do it for less.... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577105)

Certified mail is a lot cheaper and will get his attention faster than someone paying $100 so his personal assistant will see the message.

Even for $100, who says anybody will read the message, personal assistant, intern, janitor, or otherwise? There are several comments already implying that a human will actually read the email, but there's nothing in the article that implies there's any sort of guarantee or understanding that your $100 message will be read by anybody at all. It's not even a guarantee that a spam filter won't stop it, it's merely an "'economic signal' as one way to determine whether that user's message is legitimate."

Re:I can do it for less.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577459)

Because Facebook's TOS guarantee that he is the only one using that account, and violating that would open the company and Zukenberg up for legal action?

wonderful (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576685)

I wish I could do this with my e-mail. I think I would like to charge any unsolicited e-mail senders 100 bucks too.

Are they THAT hard up for cash?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576689)

Really?? 100$ to send him a message.... wow.... talk about running out of ideas....

I'll bet... (3, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576719)

Hahaha. Facebook really is desperate.

I'm pretty sure that if you had something really important (a major business deal for example), it will still reach the main man just fine using mark.zuckerberg@facebook.com .

The grasping Jew revealed in all his glory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576741)

Like I have said all along, only IDIOTS use Facebook.

Charge me a fee...? (0)

Kenshin (43036) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576759)

If you charge me a fee to send a message, then guarantee me the person receiving it will see it.

Purpose is to monetize spam (5, Interesting)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576789)

The real purpose of the $100 fee to Zuckerberg is only to draw free press to Facebook's paid spam service, where they'll allow companies to send you unsolicited emails that bypass spam filters in exchange for a fee. Without the fee Facebook says those messages go into the the "other" folder; with the fee the messages will go directly to the inbox. It's reprehensible, and Facebook has the nerve to claim the purpose of the fee is to reduce spam. The real purpose is to eliminate free spam.

99.97% reduction in spam (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576941)

Because sending email spam costs virtually nothing, I average about 1,000 email spams caught by my filters each day. (Most people don't know how many spams their provider filters out, so you may see 50 in your box, but 500 others were sent and rejected by the mail server.)
I get about 3 paper spam in the mailbox each day, because mail spam costs the sender several cents to send. Hmm, 1,000 versus 3. Seems like when the sender has to pay a few dimes each, that reduces spam by 99.97%.

Collecting postage from owners of hacked accounts? (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577241)

users who like to send spam [...] typically aren't willing to pay for the privilege. Impose a fee – however small – and they probably won't bother.

But for different reasons: The spammers will find ways to avoid being billed themselves - having a habit of abusing the resources of others, they already are in people's PCs with their botnets, for crying out loud...

Re:Purpose is to monetize spam (1)

ark1 (873448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577127)

Once this is deployed for everyone, will a normal user who is being targeted receive a % of the fee? Obviously in this case Zuck gets indirectly the money but what about the average folk?

Re:Purpose is to monetize spam (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577249)

What's reprehensible about it? Facebook is giving you a free service. In exchange, they bombard you with advertising. Why should your "inbox" be anymore immune than your "wall?" Oops, I mean "timeline?"

Re:Purpose is to monetize spam (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577443)

mod parent up.

If the fee would go to the recipient, we could be talking anti-spam measures. With the fee going to FB, it's just cashing in on spam.

Small? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576811)

Since when is $100 a small fee?

Check your apps (3, Interesting)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576913)

If Facebook will split this fee with the recipients, check your apps. How many of them have requested (and been granted) permission to send messages on your behalf? Could those apps send messages to persons not on your friends list (say the author of the app) and automatically accept the charge? If they can't now, how long before someone unscrupulous hacks it so it is possible and packages that up into a Farmville clone?

I will pay $100 to never hear about him again (5, Interesting)

big_e_1977 (2012512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42576955)

I would be willing to pay $100 dollars for a permanent media blackout so I will never have to hear about Mark Zuckerberg ever again. The only thing I might miss is a future story where he gets convicted by the feds for insider trading and fraud. But this is America were corporations and CEOs are effectively exempt from all laws so such an event ever occurring is slim.

Clever Lad ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42576975)

A new spam filter or rather a spam preventer !

Either way I like this. I wish Google would do this and fast !

I could get about $2000 per 24 hr loop ! Jeezus F**K'N Crybaby I could retire and move to the Bahamas and sip Margaritas all day and night long !

Yee Haa This Is For Me ! Sigh me up Hoodie !

XD

You Really Shouldn't Facebook Stuff On Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577103)

Because all you're gonna get are a bunch of people commenting about how smart they are because they dislike facebook. Like seriously people, you do realize you're just doing the thing that like middle school aged kids do when hate things that are popular to try to look cool? You're just dressing it up a lot more to look intellectual. There are perfectly valid reasons to not like facebook, I'm sure there are lots of people here who legitimately just don't like or don't use it--but I sincerely doubt they're the same people who comment on every single thing relating to facebook announcing to the world how cool/smart/intelligent/clever/hip they are for not liking it.

Yeah, that will work (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577141)

Back in the early 1980s when I was in college, bars started experimenting with coin operated breathalizer machines. We used them to compete to see who could get the highest blood alcohol number. I imagine that color coded glowing ice cubes would have the same effect.

Plus there is also the problem that by the time you hit red, you no longer remember why the hell your ice cube is glowing.

Does he know? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577175)

Doesn't he know you can configure the settings so that people who aren't on your friends list can't send you messages or post on your wall. Meanwhile, the US Post Office only charges 44 cents.

I Can Tell Him To Blow Me For Free Here (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577275)

He's probably not listening, but I'd be really very surprised if he actually reads his facebook page either. I'd guess he probably has some flunky do it. I might be willing to pay $100 for the video footage of his flunky conveying my message, but I doubt that's in the cards either. In any event, I can't think of anything that could interest me in creating a facebook account. Except maybe if I tell someone in the company to blow me and they took me up on it. Let's see if they're really willing to go that extra mile...

seems fair (1)

znrt (2424692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577301)

i might gladly pay the 100 bucks if i got sworn assurance he would personally read it and not some community manager.
oh, and facebook should have paid the little $500 fee i just established for receiving emails from me, of course.

i certainly would. if i had something to say to this dipshit, that is.
fucking retarded shit, this facebook thing. can you really believe this?

Buy Facebook stock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42577483)

If you want to get a message to Zukenberg, just buy facebook stock and get him your message through official bureaucratic channels. You're more likely to get a response that way. :-)

I'm about to send him a message... (1)

rnturn (11092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42577497)

... though I doubt he'll pay attention: Deleting my Facebook account.

Ads on the right-hand side of the page aren't enough. They now feel a need to insert them into my news stream. (To be fair, the frequency of those has dropped off considerably. But if it starts up again, I'll probably be telling FB see ya.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>