Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Technology

Facebook User Satisfaction Is 'Abysmal' 289

Posted by kdawson
from the users-aren't-their-customers dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "American Customer Satisfaction Index recently conducted a survey in which they found that even though Facebook is gaining popularity, they are doing a miserable job of keeping their users satisfied. According to the survey Facebook scored 64 out of 100 for customer satisfaction, which puts the website in line with the satisfaction rates for airlines and cable companies. The survey also includes other websites like YouTube and Wikipedia (which scored considerably higher) and MySpace, which came in slightly lower. (The survey did not include Twitter since many of its members access the site through third-party sites rather than Twitter.com.) The ACSI was founded at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, and is based on annual interviews with about 70,000 customers. The group has measured portals and search engines in the past, as well as news and information websites, but this is the first year the ACSI included social networking sites." UM professor Claes Fornell blogged: "Controversies over privacy issues, frequent changes to user interfaces, and increasing commercialization have positioned the big social networking sites at satisfaction levels well below other Web sites..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook User Satisfaction Is 'Abysmal'

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:17PM (#32968732) Journal
    Reported on this five hours before the one they selected [slashdot.org] but, meh, you win some you lose some. Anyway, in case anyone's interested in more numbers:

    A new report from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) has put Facebook just above the taxman [wsj.com] on America's lists. Out of 30 online companies, the two absolute worst were MySpace with 63 out of 100 and Facebook at 64 but other high scoring sites included Wikipedia (77) and YouTube (73). Unsurprisingly the report reveals that of the 233 companies they monitor year round, MySpace and Facebook are in the bottom 5% for customer satisfaction. That puts them with airlines and cable companies--two historically low ranked industries of customer satisfaction. You can see a brief overview [theacsi.org] of the scores and also note that on search engines, Bing hits 77 just behind Google at 80 for customer satisfaction. The full report with an overview of why consumers were satisfied or dissatisfied with each site can be found here in PDF [foreseeresults.com].

    Seriously, MySpace and Facebook are down there with cable companies and airlines. And their service is (on the surface) free. Must be doing a terrible job.

    UM professor Claes Fornell blogged: "Controversies over privacy issues, frequent changes to user interfaces, and increasing commercialization have positioned the big social networking sites at satisfaction levels well below other Web sites..."

    Oh, if only it ended there--he missed news feed control problems, advertising, spam, navigation issues and annoying applications. From the actual report:

    When asked what they like least about Facebook, survey respondents gave answers including privacy and security concerns, the technology that controls the news feeds, advertising, the constant and unpredictable interface changes, spam, navigation troubles, annoying applications with constant notifications, and functionality, to name a few. There is no shortage of complaints about Facebook.

    • by MadCow42 (243108) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @04:20PM (#32969780) Homepage

      "Customer Satisfaction" for Facebook is measured in click-throughs and sales dollars... not in user complaints.

      You and I are not customers to Facebook. We're the product. We're what they're selling - our eyeballs are being sold to the advertisers. Their only reason to make you happy is to ensure you come back (begrudgingly or not).

      Once you realize that, their lack of "customer service" isn't surprising in the least. So long as you're not paying for the service, you're not a customer. They care very little about your privacy, your experience, the impact that their constant site layout changes and privacy policies have on you, the annoyance if/when they sell your personal data to mailing lists and spammers - so long as it all suits the needs of their true customers and doesn't piss you off enough that you don't keep coming back. This is the way of business... get used to it unless you want to pay for these things.

      MadCow.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by coryking (104614) *

        Nonsense. Facebooks customers are it's users. You piss off the users too much and you lose their traffic. Lose the traffic and you lose your ad revenue.

        Bottom line it is in the best interest of Facebook to please its user base.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      And you both missed the facts.

      You are not Facebook's customer.

      The people buying your information from Facebook are the customer.

      You are the product.

    • The really great part about this, to me, is that Blizzard is still going to blaze forward with a depraved interbreeding of their games with Facebook.

      "Hey guys, I've got a great idea! Let's hitch our wagon to the service with the second-lowest customer satisfaction on the Internet! It's so crazy, it just might work!"

    • Of Course the damn Article makes a fundemental Mistake. That mistake is who the customers are. In the case of Facebook and MySpace it's the Advertisers, not the ef*** users.

  • That's good right? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:19PM (#32968760) Journal

    If the user's ever satisfied, he'll stop clicking. Keeping satisfaction one click away seems to be Facebook's entire business model.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gbjbaanb (229885)

      sounds like software in general.... want a working feature.. that'll be in the next version that you'll want to upgrade to.

      • by Aphoxema (1088507)

        sounds like software in general.... want a working feature.. that'll be in the next version that you'll want to upgrade to.

        The alternative is keeping up with compatibility for OS updates which also keeps you reaching for features.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jorl17 (1716772)
      User: I ain't clickin' ye
      Facebook: Yesssssss....yessss you AAAARE.

      Doesn't seem likely.
  • The question is whether they'd sell that information...Google perhaps?

  • Yeah, but (Score:3, Funny)

    by halestock (1750226) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:21PM (#32968786)
    does that include those who are dissatisfied because their parents added them as a friend?
    • by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:31PM (#32968970) Journal
      Yeah, it makes me wonder what people would respond as their satisfaction level of the world. Ask people, "Do you find yourself satisfied with your relationships with other people, or do you wish you had cooler friends? Do you like your job, or do you find it is more like work?" If Facebook is an attempt to map reality, then the closer it gets, the less likely people may be to be satisfied with it.

      Look beyond that! It's a religious principle. The first noble truth of Buddhism, sometimes translated: "Life is filled with a deep sense of unsatisfaction." It's Facebook against Buddha.

      Cable companies on the other hand have no excuse. There's no religious principle that says, "thou shalt overcharge for misrepresented crappy services." They are going to hell.
      • by Obfuscant (592200) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:46PM (#32969258)
        Do you find yourself satisfied with your relationships with other people,

        What is this "relationship" of which you speak? I am fascinated by this concept; please subscribe me to your newsletter.

        or do you wish you had cooler friends?

        What is this "friends" of which you speak? Do you cover this topic in your newsletter?

      • by vlm (69642)

        If Facebook is an attempt to map reality,

        Then most people either want to be peasant farmers or mafia bosses?

        The weird part is, that may be true!

        • Re:Yeah, but (Score:4, Insightful)

          by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @04:01PM (#32969462) Journal
          Yeah, the sad reality is that most people live incredibly boring lives (I mean, look at me, I'm posting on Slashdot). When your idea of excitement is going out and getting drunk, which is basically a way to escape reality, you know something is wrong. That matches a lot of people. A good portion of the rest stay home and pop pain-killers.

          Life is so much more exciting when you are doing things. Even if it is just planting a seed and watching it grow. I guarantee Linus Torvalds has a much more interesting and exciting life than Lindsay Lohan, even though hers is more what is traditionally considered wild.
        • Then most people either want to be peasant farmers or mafia bosses?

          And if there's overlap - free fertilizer! Woot!

      • by spun (1352)

        Unsatisfaction? Never heard it translated that way, I thought it was 'suffering.' Which means more than just sickness, old age, and death. Every good thing contains suffering, if only in that you will miss it when you don't have it. In fact, 'pain' is not even really suffering. Suffering is when we create ideas in our heads that make us unhappy, punishing ourselves for our failures, replaying painful events, fearing the loss of pleasurable things, and generally making assumptions and then having feelings ab

  • For something that's free, people sure do get enraged when it changes in the slightest, or has bugs, or decides to try to profit from the information that people love to dump on it.
    • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:28PM (#32968908)

      Or publicizes information that you specifically told them to keep private.

      • by AxemRed (755470)
        I have yet to run into a case where Facebook blatantly publicized information that I set to be private. Most of the time, people fail to understand the permissions or how to set them. Other than the occasional bug, I haven't seen much of a reason to complain.
    • by Len (89493) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:33PM (#32969024)

      Facebook has repeatedly changed their policies to publish various data that they had said was private or friends-only. But hey, no problem, they didn't charge money when they screwed people over so it's OK!

      Uh, no, it's not OK.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      So you don't think that users would get mad if the information FB said would be private suddenly became public? What if on a forum the e-mail address you had hidden suddenly became public and they sold that to spammers? Its essentially the same thing with Facebook.

      As for the changes, the vast majority of them were regressions simply change for the sake of changing. Yes, there -were- some great new features, namely the chat feature added in, but the "New Facebook"? It "fixed" bugs that didn't exist and a
      • What's curious is the anger is so impotent (and I say this without any snark). I heard a news piece on Canadian radio ("Search engine" by Jesse Brown) lately that talked about this. Apparently, with all the ruckus and "Quit FB" groups making noise, less than 0.01% of FB users actually quit over this. By the way, if you're Canadian, there's a class action lawsuit in the works representing all Canuck FBers (google it).

        It's like expecting cocaine users to quit snorting because their dealer ratted them out to t

    • by causality (777677) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:39PM (#32969128)

      For something that's free, people sure do get enraged when it changes in the slightest, or has bugs, or decides to try to profit from the information that people love to dump on it.

      It's an equal exchange. Facebook as a corporation would go out of business in a hurry if not for its users. The users are doing their part. Facebook is failing to do theirs in a way that satisfies the very users who make its existence possible. It's perfectly legitimate to raise an objection about this.

      You're essentially saying "shut up and take what you're given" as though Facebook were a charity. They absolutely are not, and it's intellectually dishonest to speak about them as though they were.

      • It's perfectly legitimate to raise an objection about this.

        But that objection would carry weight only if there was some substantial threat behind it (the threat of large numbers of FB users quitting for instance). Even with massive mobilization, less than 0.01% of users did so after this latest debacle. That sends a clear message to FB that there are no consequences to privacy violations. Clearly, the users need it much more than the other way around. The users have no leverage by themselves (rather like politics in a large democracy). Note that they do have it in

    • by selven (1556643)

      It's not free, nothing is. People still have to spend time creating and customizing their accounts. In their minds, this constitutes and investment just like any other, and they feel betrayed when the terms of the investment suddenly change.

    • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:41PM (#32969160)

      Actually, the problem is that like the cable industry, *Facebook* acts like it has a sense of entitlement. Once they had a critical mass and growth rate, they decided they could shit all over their users and the users wouldn't defect, leaving plenty of eyeballs to advertise to and freeing them to engage in short-term profit-maximizing behavior.

      Sadly, many of these dissatisfied users keep using Facebook even though they know it sucks and they hate it.

      • Once they had a critical mass and growth rate, they decided they could shit all over their users and the users wouldn't defect, leaving plenty of eyeballs to advertise to and freeing them to engage in short-term profit-maximizing behavior.

        Seems to have been an amazingly accurate prediction on their part. Dicks yes, but highly intelligent dicks =)

    • For something that's free, people sure do get enraged when it changes in the slightest, or has bugs, or decides to try to profit from the information that people love to dump on it.

      Well, if you promise one thing for free, then go changing it on people, yeah, that annoys them at least a little. They were expecting one thing and had their reasons for agreeing to it in the first place. Those expectations may have been ignorant, but you don't sign up for facebook -after- investigating their privacy policy, that's just not how normal people work.

    • I suppose that's true to an extent, but frankly, there is a limit to how you can apply that logic. For me, I used to love using Myspace and I hated facebook (years ago). Myspace was lighter, simpler, and had more interesting bits to it. Since they were both free, I opted for Myspace and stuck with it. Then Myspace changed their UI, did some stuff that I still don't understand to their messaging system, and all around broke their website on my older hardware computers (yes, I intend to upgrade soon, but I sh
  • API lousy, too (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:23PM (#32968810)

    And, as a developer, I can say that their API is buggy and very poorly documented, by far the worst of any of the social networking or photo sharing sites I've worked with. My daughter reports that available iPhone/iPad apps are terrible, too.

    • Worse than Myspace? If so, that's an interesting, developer-centric attitude. I can't find one person over the age of 14 who thinks Myspace is a better user experience than Facebook.

  • Twitter was not included because many of its members access the site through third-party sites rather than Twitter.com.

    They're still subject to many hours of downtime per year. I'd still like to see what users think of the fail whale and other representations of Twitter's persistent capacity issues.

  • by NormalVisual (565491) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:23PM (#32968818)
    Whether the users are happy or not doesn't mean squat to Facebook because their users aren't their customers. It's the happiness of their advertisers and those who purchase the data that Facebook continually mines that matters to them.
    • by quanticle (843097)

      Agreed. Users aren't the customers. They're the product.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The users are the product that they are selling.

    • User satisfaction is important, and that's what could end up busting Facebook at the bank. The users are their commodity. If they are unsatisfied and stop using the service (which they will when the next big-splash social site opens), Facebook finds itself with less and less value to offer their customers. Not concerning yourself with the users is a great model for a turn-and-burn, but not for sustaining a business. Zuckerberg comes off short sighted enough that he either doesn't get it, or doesn't care
      • by causality (777677)

        If they are unsatisfied and stop using the service (which they will when the next big-splash social site opens), Facebook finds itself with less and less value to offer their customers.

        If those users had any backbone then they'd do without a non-critical service before they'd use one that they don't like. And no, a vanity page is not a critical service that one could never live without. Because they have no such backbone, Facebook can collect revenue even when it does a terrible job.

      • Reality doesn't seem to support you in this. The social inertia of an entire network of friends is a massive thing. And these trends are more complicated by the fact that these are true networks - with horrendous connectivity (not like the social circles of yore that used to be dominated by a handful of people that largely controlled trends). Besides, if such a large scale fiasco couldn't push users away, I'm curious to see what will. The users are addicted, they're invested too heavily and at a personal le

    • by batquux (323697)

      "64 out of 100"

      Facebook for President!

    • Whether the users are happy or not doesn't mean squat to Facebook because their users aren't their customers.

      Until their users are so unhappy that they leave and their real customers immediately follow. Look at radio stations. They're in hard times because everyone is listening to their mp3s or internet radio, or something that doesn't have annoying DJs and ads. The fact that you don't pay radio as a customer is irrelevant.

    • Whether the users are happy or not doesn't mean squat to Facebook because their users aren't their customers.

      Its true that, instead of customers, their users are the suppliers of the product that they sell to their customers.

      However, that doesn't make user satisfaction irrelevant, as user satisfaction is a key factor in user retention in the presence of alternatives.

      There was a time when MySpace was the dominant social networking site, and if Facebook can't keep its users happy, it it won't keep its users i

  • The difference is that some of us were paying attention when Facebook first started catching on. How many negative stories does one require before they realize that this is a company which is not interested in its users?

    Controversies over privacy issues, frequent changes to user interfaces, and increasing commercialization have positioned the big social networking sites at satisfaction levels well below other Web sites...

    I'd add an item to that list: users who can't see the seeds of those things and must

  • A small reminder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by countertrolling (1585477) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:28PM (#32968894) Journal

    You get what you pay for

    • by kindbud (90044)

      Facebook's users are what's being sold here, let's not kid ourselves.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      You get what you pay for

      Oh boy! Have I got the perfect bridge for you! *twirls mustache*

    • by afabbro (33948)

      You get what you pay for

      Unless you're a Slashdot subscriber. Then you get the same thing others get for free.

  • by Itninja (937614)
    "Man, this is bad! And I've had my share of bad reviews. I still remember my first good one though. 'Everything else in this production of Our Town was simply terrible. Joey Tribbiani was abysmal.'"
  • "Customer satisfaction is a thing of the past. They should get over it."
  • by eexaa (1252378) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:30PM (#32968946) Homepage

    It took around 10 seconds to shoot down standard army targetting dummy.

    If the laser tower can target the pilot in classical manned aircraft (and I bet it can), it's done in less than a second, even from quite far away.

    In result, aircraft with any tranlucent windows seem totally unusuable for combat now.

  • user satisfaction for a free product? don't get me wrong, i personally don't like the idea of facebook.
    but face the facts: their purpose is to have many users, and they're getting more and more users.
    do these people with the survey provide any kind of insight into how their result means "people will leave facebook"?
    by default, such a website can't possibly be "liked", because it needs to satisfy your granma and your cousin with the PhD who's doing research into AI. nobody can really like it, they're just us

    • by vlm (69642)

      by default, such a website can't possibly be "liked", because it needs to satisfy your granma and your cousin with the PhD who's doing research into AI. nobody can really like it, they're just using it because they can't find anything better

      In other words, "The internet is for pr0n"

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      user satisfaction for a free product? don't get me wrong, i personally don't like the idea of facebook. but face the facts: their purpose is to have many users, and they're getting more and more users.

      I love the people I'm connected with via the site. I hate the site. It's like a smelly dive you're willing to go to for the sake of your friends because they always meet there. FB, although a "free" product should worry about being too smelly; if enough users leave, the people paying for corporate voyeurism will throw their money at $FOO instead.

  • by spagthorpe (111133) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:34PM (#32969026)

    Facebook is basically a monopoly in this space. No matter what the satisfaction rating, people will continue to use it, sometimes all freaking day. I would love to have a business "failing" this badly.

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:46PM (#32969242)
      There is a -huge- difference between Facebook and cable companies. Facebook is not an abusive monopoly like cable companies are. In general, cable companies use public land for private gain, many times going even far enough to forbid competition in a town so the town gains a cheaper rate for crappy service.

      If everyone wanted to, they could move from Facebook to another social networking site very easily. Saying that Facebook is a monopoly is akin to saying Hotmail, Yahoo Mail and Gmail are monopolies, they are popular, but there isn't really much stopping me from going to a different email provider.

      And people -have- moved social networking sites many, many, many times in the past. One only needs to look at Friendster and Myspace to see that. What Facebook has done that will make it hard to de-throne is that -everyone- has a Facebook, they have made it easy for not only teenagers to have an account but also middle aged people and the elderly, something that Friendster and Myspace failed to do.
  • I suspect that in general, consumers are willing to give up a lot in terms of quality for products which are 'free.' (Yeah, yeah, I know it's not 'really' free, users see ads, sell their privacy blah blah blah, but Joe Average user would consider FB 'free.')

    If FB were to charge for their services it would be a different story. For example, I pay $25 per year for a flickr account. As a result, I have a much lower tolerance for quality issues with flickr than I do with facebook. Luckily, flickr issues ar
  • But then I found everyone, and it's just a bunch of freaking noise. I use the system to allow extended family (and some friends) to see pictures of my kid. Beyond that, I've got no time for the bazillions of status updates from Zynga. I mean, why is my "news feed" full of notices about so-and-so hatching a unicorn egg or some BS?

    It turns out that as cool as getting connected is, actually being connected kind of sucks.
    • What was cool about Facebook is I've been able to find all the folks I studied abroad with in Germany back in 2000 even though there were people from the US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Turkey, etc.. It was kind of fun to see everyone ten years later and see what folks were up to and keep some type of tabs of people. It also helps because now if I need to get a work permit for the UK, that's what one of my friends from that program does now for living. That part of Facebook I enjoy. Also I like how

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:39PM (#32969122)
    I've been a FaceBook member for over a year now, and I haven't gotten laid even once!
  • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:43PM (#32969192)
    This is a tangential rant, but I hate the way both of those links present the data. For some reason most journalists and even bloggers feel the need to "digest" data by putting it into paragraph prose, as if this makes it easier to understand. In many cases, it doesn't. TFA and the linked blog end up spending many, many sentences listing a bunch of numbers, which turns into a confusing narrative. What would be far more useful is a table or list of sites, along with their scores, put in order. They can highlight the entries they think are particularly interesting (e.g. Facebook), while allowing the reader to peruse the list and gain an immediate appreciation for the trends. They can then spend their sentences describing the context and meaning of the data, rather than just repeating numbers.

    I see this time and again in news reports: they list statistics and numbers that they are clearly reading off of a list or graph, but don't let us actually see the graph! I appreciate that I may be more technically-minded than most, and may be more comfortable with graphs and ordered datasets than the average news reader. However I think anyone smart/educated enough to understand the point being made in a paragraph of statistics is better served by a simple and clean (but accurate) graph or ordered list.
    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:52PM (#32969338)
      In order to address my concern, here is a list of all the scores that TFA and the blog post mention:

      82 FoxNews.com (news)
      80 Google (search)
      77 Wikipedia
      77 USAToday.com (news)
      77 Microsoft Bing (search)
      76 NYTimes.com (news)
      76 Yahoo (search)
      75 ABCNews.com (news)
      75 MSN
      74 MSNBC.com (news)
      74 AOL
      73 CNN.com (news)
      73 Ask.com (search)
      73 YouTube
      66 Airlines
      66 Subscription TV service
      64 Facebook
      63 MySpace
  • by stewbacca (1033764) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:57PM (#32969412)

    People are stupid. Their opinions are stupid and lousy indicators of a product's quality. YouTube users are more satisfied? Have you seen the user comments on YouTube? Have you ever been able to find something you need on YouTube hidden amongst the millions of complete time-waster outlets for any idiot with a camera?

    People who like their stuff like their stuff, regardless of how good or bad it really is. Saying Facebook has bad user satisfaction is a byproduct of populist group-think: "I heard something about Facebook giving out my private information (that I willingly host on the Internet)...damn those bastards! But I'm not giving up my Facebook because it's too important to me!".

    Seriously, if it so abysmal, stop using it. Not enough people have that sort of character, though. It's too easy to bitch about things without actually doing anything about it.

    • have you ever been able to find something...?

      Yes. Two words: Ninja Cat [youtube.com].

    • by GreggBz (777373)
      Facebook used to be cool before they started screwing it up. I don't think it's users are stupid. I think they are wising up.

      It has everyone, because.. well it has everyone. And once it got everyone, it started to change for the worse. The changes are what people are complaining about.

      If there was an alternative with better privacy regulations and less crap, I think lots of people would jump ship. The problem is, most of the value of Facebook comes from the size of it's user base. In order for the alt
      • Facebook used to be cool before they started screwing it up. I don't think it's users are stupid.

        I do. The beauty of Facebook is it let's me know just how stupid my racist uncle really is, or how ignorant my young coworker is of the world, or just how insanely right wing nut job some of my friends really are.

        Then there's this gem:

        http://www.failbook.com/ [failbook.com]

        (at work, it's blocked, so i can't remember if it's .org or .com)

        I like the guy who was crowing about how he got lucky only for his mom to press the "like" button.

  • I mean, a subtle change in wording of a question that means, "Do you like facebook?" and all you're finding out is that a lot of people don't like their friends or their own lives.

  • ... not on the list. I guess it may be for the better that slashdot is no longer large - or influential - enough to be considered for the list at all. This way, slashdot management (and programmers) can continue in their blissful ignorance of the destruction they cause.

    Although one would think that the complaints of

    frequent changes to user interfaces, and increasing commercialization

    Should ring some bells around here... or maybe not.

  • Why even compare an airline with a social networking site with a video sharing site? How do you even quantify that? When an airline crams me into a small seat for 400 dollars I'm dissatisfied, which is to say I'm always dissatisfied with airlines. When a video sharing site doesn't load a video I become dissatisfied, which almost never happens.

    It's like saying hammers are better than cars because more people are satisfied that their hammers do a better job.

  • The only customers that matter are the ones who advertise on the site. Everyone else is a viewer. As long as they go on viewing and clicking on ads, their opinions about a free service won't count for much. It's like griping about commercial broadcast TV. It's free to the consumer, all that counts is that the advertisers get their message out there because they are the true "customers" from a strict business point of view. The only thing that will make a significant change to the way these providers do busi

  • by Haxx (314221) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @07:30PM (#32972374) Homepage

      Facebook allows you to communicate with almost anyone you have ever known, for free. Yeah screw them, they suck. This article is all over the web and it is worthless and meaningless.

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...