Facebook users should keep complaining, complaining bitterly, complaining in every possible forum.
Oddly, for all the controversy over Facebook implementing yet another round of changes to its layout and user experience, that controversy has almost been drowned out by arguments over whether it?s appropriate for users to complain about Facebook. Yes, the burning debate among users is over whether there should be a burning debate among users.
Much of the force of the ?stop complaining!? camp is rooted in the claim that, hey, after all, it?s a free service and no one?s forcing you to use it anyway. But contrary to what you might have heard, Facebook isn?t optional, and it isn?t free. Let me explain.
First, let?s talk price. Lots of people have already pointed out that while Facebook doesn?t charge users for an account, that doesn?t mean it?s free. The service is supported by advertising, just like TV shows have been since the days of early soap operas. So you are ?paying? to use Facebook ? you?re paying with your eyeballs. You?re paying with attention, however fleeting, to those ads along the side of the page. And ? the more worrying fact ? you?re paying with your privacy, as Facebook uses what seems to be increasingly-ornate ways to gather information about you, your preferences, and your web-surfing habits. As the saying goes, there?s no such thing as a free lunch. Facebook isn?t an exception.
Think of it this way: Facebook is like a gas-station bathroom. It might be ?free?, but that doesn?t mean that quality doesn?t matter. In both cases, the ?free? service being offered is there as an inducement. In the gas station?s case, it?s an inducement to stop there for gas (and increasingly for snacks, magazines, etc.). In Facebook?s case, being able to post stuff for ?free? for your friends to see is an inducement to look at those ads, and to share your web-surfing habits with that advertising agency. So they have reason to want you to be satisfied, and you have every right to demand excellence in return for your attention.
Second, is Facebook optional? Whether a product is optional or not matters, ethically, because when a product is truly optional, customers can simply exit the relationship, either buying the product from someone else or not buying it at all. Given the option to exit, the dispute between producer and consumer evaporates as the two simply agree to disagree and go their separate ways. (The classic source on this is Albert O. Hirschman?s book, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.) But Facebook isn?t optional. Ok, I know. Strictly speaking yes it?s optional. But then, so is email, or having a telephone, or having a car. Optional but, for many of us, functionally essential. In this regard, Facebook is a victim of its own success. It has no real competition, and the service is one that many of us cannot simply walk away from. In essence, Facebook has gained a virtual monopoly on what has become part of our social infrastructure. Complaining about Facebook is no sillier than complaining about the state of your local roads or the consistency of your supply of electricity.
So if you don?t like Facebook?s new layout, or if you don?t like Facebook?s approach to privacy, do not hesitate to complain. You?re well within your rights. And if Facebook listens, you might just help make the on-line world a better place.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Source: http://businessethicsblog.com/2011/09/26/facebook-its-not-ok-to-suck/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.