What Happens When The Itch You Scratch Is Digital?

[goldbug9999]

So my wider claim is that digital technology is a value destroying force when looked at in the aggregate. The fact that Facebook can not or dare not ask for even a token payment for the value it provides it's users is indicative of a longer term trend in which the economic value of digital products will continue to fall. And as more and more products and services are delivered in digital form the result will be a widespread destruction of economic value as the pricing power of these products and services is eroded.

I think facebooks situation is more to do with the fact that you cant provide a service for free for years and then you cant suddenly start charging for it, rather than the fact that it is "digital".

There are plenty of examples of "digital" products people happily pay for e.g music downloads , ebooks, virus scanners (even though there are perfectly good free ones ...) . People also pay for digital enhancements of non-digital activities that they used to do laregely for free such as dating, selling 2nd hand stuff (e.g. ebay), money transfer (paypal) watching TV.

There are also examples of non-digital services that people expect for free and are very reluctant to pay for e.g. health care (at least in this country) primary/secondary education.

Its also amusing that you mention rent-seeking (in another post) because if artificially supporting the rate someone can charge for their labour inst rent seeking then I don't know what is.

Also you still havn't addresses the point that many of the people providing very cheap or even free digital services are still very well paid for example most the IT people who run email systems are better paid than post men. The digital industries employ millions of people on generally high pay rates while providing incredible useful services that are often very cheap or even free, all because of the hyper productivity that the high levels of automation allow. A clear win-win for everyone concerned, apart from you apparently ...

Edited November 7, 2012 by goldbug9999

[thecrashingisles]

I am not saying that Facebook does not make money- that's not the point. What I am addressing is the curious fact that Facebook users seem totally hostile to the very concept of paying for a service they actually want. Yet these same people would not think twice about paying for a packet of crisps or other trivial items.

It seems to me that what you can't get your head around is not the digital economy, but any business model where the economic customer is not the same as the user of a service.

Take a (non-BBC) radio station. You can receive their product at no cost and enjoy their content, because what they are actually selling is access to you.

[The Eagle]

With Facebook and Google the users are the product, the ad customers are the real customers of the service.

Google and Facebook are and ad placement service, not a social network or a search engine.

So neither of them is providing a free service, it's you who are confused about what their product is and who their customers are.

---

Edited November 7, 2012 by The Eagle

[aa3]

Something to think about for you guys...

For those who were followign the economy online back in the late 90's.. the big hope and thought then was that the 'new economy' was the replacement for the old economy.

The old economy being the post-war era big manufacturing, electric, mining economy that was so successful at generating good union jobs. But by the 90's it was obvious to every serious follower of statistics that manufacturing was in big decline as an employer. In the 80's there was still debate about how to get manufacturing going again.

If you read back it was very similiar to the debate about the decline of the farm economy in the 1930's in America. Just the change in the farm economy happened much faster.

But the saviour had arrived, tech. And in the 90's as the tech buildout went on it was not just a mass employer, the jobs were paying higher than the old manufacturing jobs. Remember 1999 when US firms were bidding against each other, and briefly average programmers were clearing 200k a year?

But then it changed. With the tech wreck.. tech still kept up its amazing technological ascent. But clearly it was not going to be the mass employer to replace manufacturing. By now no one thinks tech is going to be a mass employer of that scale. Even the world's most successful tech companies like facebook employ just a few thousand people. One steel mill used to employ 10 times that!!

In retrospect it is obvious that tech was never going to be a mass employer. For one you don't have to re-make a program every time a customer orders a new one. Once its done, its done. 1,000 people can use it, or 10,000,000.. takes the same programming.

[Traktion]

Something to think about for you guys...

For those who were followign the economy online back in the late 90's.. the big hope and thought then was that the 'new economy' was the replacement for the old economy.

The old economy being the post-war era big manufacturing, electric, mining economy that was so successful at generating good union jobs. But by the 90's it was obvious to every serious follower of statistics that manufacturing was in big decline as an employer. In the 80's there was still debate about how to get manufacturing going again.

If you read back it was very similiar to the debate about the decline of the farm economy in the 1930's in America. Just the change in the farm economy happened much faster.

But the saviour had arrived, tech. And in the 90's as the tech buildout went on it was not just a mass employer, the jobs were paying higher than the old manufacturing jobs. Remember 1999 when US firms were bidding against each other, and briefly average programmers were clearing 200k a year?

But then it changed. With the tech wreck.. tech still kept up its amazing technological ascent. But clearly it was not going to be the mass employer to replace manufacturing. By now no one thinks tech is going to be a mass employer of that scale. Even the world's most successful tech companies like facebook employ just a few thousand people. One steel mill used to employ 10 times that!!

In retrospect it is obvious that tech was never going to be a mass employer. For one you don't have to re-make a program every time a customer orders a new one. Once its done, its done. 1,000 people can use it, or 10,000,000.. takes the same programming.

Good post - thanks for that!

If there aren't new ways to feed the rent seekers, the rent seekers are going to have to go on a diet.

[thecrashingisles]

But then it changed. With the tech wreck.. tech still kept up its amazing technological ascent. But clearly it was not going to be the mass employer to replace manufacturing. By now no one thinks tech is going to be a mass employer of that scale. Even the world's most successful tech companies like facebook employ just a few thousand people. One steel mill used to employ 10 times that!!

In retrospect it is obvious that tech was never going to be a mass employer. For one you don't have to re-make a program every time a customer orders a new one. Once its done, its done. 1,000 people can use it, or 10,000,000.. takes the same programming.

But you can't just look at the people directly employed by those companies. Even something like Facebook creates opportunities for people who provide services like building a social media presence for local businesses.

[wonderpup]

I think facebooks situation is more to do with the fact that you cant provide a service for free for years and then you cant suddenly start charging for it, rather than the fact that it is "digital".

Why not- if the demand is there? What's to stop them?

Think what you are actually saying here: that a company providing a service to almost a billion satisfied customers HAS NO PRICING POWER.

This is the reality. Facebook are entirely free to charge anything they want for the service they provide- the reason they don't is because they know that if they do their users will not accept it and will eventually move to other providers who will offer them free service.

So what is clear is that digital products and services are seen in a radically different way to things like chewing gum. People will cheerfully pay for chewing gum- but any suggestion that they pay for Facebook is greeted with outrage and hastily issued denials from Facebook.

The implication of this is that as more and more goods and services are delivered digitally they will lose pricing power because their users will not expect to pay much if anything for their use.

There are plenty of examples of "digital" products people happily pay for e.g music downloads , ebooks, virus scanners (even though there are perfectly good free ones ...) . People also pay for digital enhancements of non-digital activities that they used to do laregely for free such as dating, selling 2nd hand stuff (e.g. ebay), money transfer (paypal) watching TV.

Yes I agree- it's the long term trend I am asking you to look at here- and the psychological background to that trend.

Take ebooks- people feel they should pay less for the e-book than for the physical book-why? After all it's the authors words you are buying here and you get the same number of words in the e-book as you do in the physical book- so why expect to pay less for the e-book?

It seems that people who buy e-books are of the opinion that an electronic version of the identical text ought not to cost as much as physical version- as a result the profitability to the publisher of that e-book version is lower.

There are good arguments to be made here that the e-book is far cheaper to produce and distribute than the physical book- and who could disagree- but you see the point I am making- the perception is that the electronic text has less 'value' than the physical- and this is value destruction.

There are also examples of non-digital services that people expect for free and are very reluctant to pay for e.g. health care (at least in this country) primary/secondary education.

No- this does not fly.People do not expect non digital products or services to be free- they expect to pay. You have offered two public services that are paid from taxation- so people do see these as things they have paid for.

Its also amusing that you mention rent-seeking (in another post) because if artificially supporting the rate someone can charge for their labour inst rent seeking then I don't know what is.

I agree. My point is that digital technology is eliminating more economic value than it is creating- not that rent seeking is good thing.

Also you still havn't addresses the point that many of the people providing very cheap or even free digital services are still very well paid for example most the IT people who run email systems are better paid than post men. The digital industries employ millions of people on generally high pay rates while providing incredible useful services that are often very cheap or even free, all because of the hyper productivity that the high levels of automation allow. A clear win-win for everyone concerned, apart from you apparently ...

I have not argued that digital technology has not made some people a lot of money- my point is that the long term trend is for the economic value of digital products and services to head toward zero- partly because of the hyper efficiency you describe- and partly due to the psychological factors that prevent Facebook from imposing a charge on it's users- the very strong feeling amongst a growing number of people that digital products and services ought to be free because the medium in which they exist is regarded as near infinitely abundant.

If it costs Facebook virtually zero to add me as new member- why should I pay them- this is the psychological paradigm that seems to be implied.

[thecrashingisles]

Wonderpup - It may not have escaped your attention but Skyfall, a purely digital product, was recently released and broke records. Also a book called '50 shades of grey' which was originally self-published on Amazon has helped its author become extremely rich.

[wonderpup]

It seems to me that what you can't get your head around is not the digital economy, but any business model where the economic customer is not the same as the user of a service.

Take a (non-BBC) radio station. You can receive their product at no cost and enjoy their content, because what they are actually selling is access to you.

With Facebook and Google the users are the product, the ad customers are the real customers of the service.

Google and Facebook are and ad placement service, not a social network or a search engine.

So neither of them is providing a free service, it's you who are confused about what their product is and who their customers are.

Why not do both? Why not charge for Ads and charge the users? That way you make more money- and making money is what being in business is all about.

So why don't Facebook do both?

Is it because if they try to charge their users they will loose those users and in the process destroy their Ad revenue model?

Yes- that is exactly the reason. So what this is telling you is that Facebook has nearly a billion end users of their product and zero pricing power over those users- they dare not try to impose even a token charge on their userbase because that userbase will not-they believe- accept that charge.

So what does it mean that a company that provides a popular service to nearly a billion people has ZERO pricing power in respect of those end users?

It means that the way value is assigned to digital products and services is radically different to the way value is assigned to chewing gum or packets of crisps. The same people who would be enraged by a small fee to access their Facebook account will happily spend the same amount on chewing gum without a second thought.

So what are the implications of this value assignment psychology when it comes to the economic value of digital products and services? It implies that the long term pricing trend is downward.

Edited November 8, 2012 by wonderpup

[thecrashingisles]

Yes- that is exactly the reason. So what this is telling you is that Facebook has nearly a billion customers and zero pricing power over those customers

You still don't understand. The users are not the customers; they are the part of the product.

[wonderpup]

You still don't understand. The users are not the customers; they are the part of the product.

I do understand the business model- but ask yourself a question: If you were in a position to add billions to your revenue by imposing a small charge on those users- would you do it?

Of course- why would you not? Unless- that is- you believed that those users would not accept that charge.

So the issue is not how Facebook makes it's money- it's why they seem to leave billions of additional revenue on the table.

They know that when it comes to their users they have no pricing power at all- which is exactly the point I am making.

Low barriers to entry, low set up and running costs mean that Facebook dare not charge their users for fear that a newcomer will appear and eat their lunch. The very medium that allowed them to scale their service so fast makes them vulnerable to attack.

The interesting question here is why their users would be so outraged to pay for something they genuinely value and use. They seem to regard access to Facebook as a natural part of the online ecosystem- and would treat any attempt to charge for it as an infringement of their basic freedoms- which is a really strange perspective-given that Facebook is clearly a commercial entity driven by profit.

[wonderpup]

In retrospect it is obvious that tech was never going to be a mass employer. For one you don't have to re-make a program every time a customer orders a new one. Once its done, its done. 1,000 people can use it, or 10,000,000.. takes the same programming.

It's odd that when we talk about the idea of star trek replicators everyone can agree that they would mean the end of the economy- but what is the process you describe above if not the digital version of this idea?

Programme once, sell millions of copies at near zero production and distribution cost.

So how much would you be prepared to pay for something that you knew cost almost nothing to make? If you are a Facebook user the answer is nothing.

So it may well be that the idea of a 'digital economy' is close to being an oxymoron. The ability to monetise digital products is hanging by the thread of copyright limitations- a thread that grows ever more frayed as more and more suppliers offer free alternatives in the hope of catching their share of the dwindling online advertising spend.

Edited November 8, 2012 by wonderpup

[Guest eight]

I do understand the business model- but ask yourself a question: If you were in a position to add billions to your revenue by imposing a small charge on those users- would you do it?

Of course- why would you not? Unless- that is- you believed that those users would not accept that charge.

So the issue is not how Facebook makes it's money- it's why they seem to leave billions of additional revenue on the table.

They know that when it comes to their users they have no pricing power at all- which is exactly the point I am making.

Low barriers to entry, low set up and running costs mean that Facebook dare not charge their users for fear that a newcomer will appear and eat their lunch. The very medium that allowed them to scale their service so fast makes them vulnerable to attack.

The interesting question here is why their users would be so outraged to pay for something they genuinely value and use. They seem to regard access to Facebook as a natural part of the online ecosystem- and would treat any attempt to charge for it as an infringement of their basic freedoms- which is a really strange perspective-given that Facebook is clearly a commercial entity driven by profit.

I think you're a bit hung up on Facebook - the fact is, it's unique selling point, infact it's only selling point, is that it's free. If people don't value it enough to pay for it that is Facebook's problem - nobody is compelling them to continue. I don't see where the problem is.

They could always seek voluntary donations. Micropayments are another option but the technology isn't there yet - people might happily pay $0.50/month but there is no way to administer this that doesn't cost more than the amount you are raising. In fact Facebook would do everybody a favour if they successfully addressed this problem.

As for the Ebooks, the cost of the "content" is virtually negligible in the cost breakdown of a traditional book. Sans paper, printing, storage, distribution and miscellaneous sales costs, how much would you expect a book to cost? If the author makes ten cents off each sale he is doing well under the current setup. Ergo if he can sell his digital book directly for twenty cents he is doing even better.

[cybernoid]

I do understand the business model- but ask yourself a question: If you were in a position to add billions to your revenue by imposing a small charge on those users- would you do it?

Of course- why would you not? Unless- that is- you believed that those users would not accept that charge.

You have no idea what facebook are doing and why they are doing it. You assume the objective of facebook is to make as much money as possible. How do you know? Plenty of businesses are not founded with the purpose of solely maximising profits.

They know that when it comes to their users they have no pricing power at all- which is exactly the point I am making.

Again you assume you know their objectives, and you also assume you know the reaction of the users to any pricing model. You don't know either.

Low barriers to entry, low set up and running costs mean that Facebook dare not charge their users for fear that a newcomer will appear and eat their lunch.

How do you know?

The interesting question here is why their users would be so outraged to pay for something they genuinely value and use. They seem to regard access to Facebook as a natural part of the online ecosystem- and would treat any attempt to charge for it as an infringement of their basic freedoms

How do you know they would be outraged? How many of them have you asked?

Your posts on this entire thread are filled with this. You assume you know whats happening, state your guesses as facts and then go off on one pontificating about this and that based on naff all. Your premises are wrong, or at best assumed.

Unless you've spoken with Zuckerburg in great detail about his intentions and motivations you've no basis whatsoever for most of what you have said.

Remember he had an opportunity to cash out before and didn't take it. He has stated time and again why he is doing what he is doing, and that the building of a network is the primary purpose. The connection between people, bringing down of barriers, all that stuff. It is a network, and a network values nodes. Users are the nodes. It has worth by Zuckerburgs definition if it has more users. He measures its success by the number of users, and the geographical spread of those users. Monetizing those users can be done by others who use this network. Facebook has a use for money, the network requires it to grow. But it is not the purpose of it, it is a fuel to be consumed on the way to other goals.

[cybernoid]

Why is everyone so convinced that people will not be happy to even pay a dollar a year for a service they clearly value?

Can you explain that?

Who is convinced of that? Just because they didnt choose to make it a paid service something must have been stopping them?

Again assuming you know their intentions, and assuming you know what 'everyone' is convinced of. You know neither.

[rxe]

Remember he had an opportunity to cash out before and didn't take it. He has stated time and again why he is doing what he is doing, and that the building of a network is the primary purpose. The connection between people, bringing down of barriers, all that stuff. It is a network, and a network values nodes. Users are the nodes. It has worth by Zuckerburgs definition if it has more users. He measures its success by the number of users, and the geographical spread of those users. Monetizing those users can be done by others who use this network. Facebook has a use for money, the network requires it to grow. But it is not the purpose of it, it is a fuel to be consumed on the way to other goals

That is very similar to the "eyeballs" argument used in 1999 to justify insane web valuations. It didn't matter that the users weren't paying, it was all about how sticky their eyeballs were.

The only reason you build a network like this is to monetise it, indeed for Facebook, the service is irrelevant, as long as it is good enough to hold people's attention for long enough to make advertising to them worthwhile. So you have a business model based on a service that no one pays for, but the revenue comes from third parties selling their wares on the platform. This is inherently risky, because the consumer is a fickle beast - something else "cooler" will come along. And then you are left with the very hard task of persuading users to hand over cash for something that they believe is free.

[aa3]

It's odd that when we talk about the idea of star trek replicators everyone can agree that they would mean the end of the economy- but what is the process you describe above if not the digital version of this idea?

Programme once, sell millions of copies at near zero production and distribution cost.

So how much would you be prepared to pay for something that you knew cost almost nothing to make? If you are a Facebook user the answer is nothing.

So it may well be that the idea of a 'digital economy' is close to being an oxymoron. The ability to monetise digital products is hanging by the thread of copyright limitations- a thread that grows ever more frayed as more and more suppliers offer free alternatives in the hope of catching their share of the dwindling online advertising spend.

Thought provoking post.. As the singularity takes over I think economics is going to be very different indeed.

Copyright is a huge and growing area of the law. And I believe free markets are creations of the state. Just as the marketplace in say housing in the UK is created by the government.. so can a functioning free market be for intellectual property. Of course even this breaks down if things are actually free.

I do not believe we are going to see replicators anytime soon. But on some level if we get to automated mining, to automated transportation, to automated mills, to automated factories, to automated distribution and sales.. it isn't much different. The cost will be decided mainly by the energy involved and maybe the intellectual capital. And that is the same as the replicators in Star Trek. There was one thing in their economy that people had to pay for(well the communist federation).. energy.

In Star Trek Deep Space Nine they thought of some areas where the economy still was. First off energy, and especially the dilithium crystals. Next was gold pressed latinum, which in the story the replicators could not create. Another one was authentic antiquities. I presume things that are inherently limited would have trade value, like a house close to downtown.. but even there that may not be the case. The game can totally change with virtual reality and essentially unlimited connectivity.

But it starts feeling like to make the economy as we know it work in that type of world would be totally futile. Like dropping interest rates and hoping to stimulate a credit expansion would not do much in that place.

[200p]

Facebook could do well by buying up shares in businesses that own the landlines and mobile networks to secure its future. It could then collect the dividends and income from those businesses. That is a way to monetise Facebook. People will pay £10 per month for their Matrix connection.

If free wifi and internet takes off, look to the next essential; electricity companies that power the networks and so on.

[cock-eyed octopus]

This topic, in various guises, turns up here again & again. Doubtless it will continue to do so.

Some seem to have very limited ideas of what human beings are, why they do what they do.

Essentially we are driven by two things. The Romans understood this. Panem et Circenses.

We have (in the developed world, for the time being, & for the whole world if we wanted) solved the Panem problem. This site is all about the artificial constraints keeping the cost of one of the main Panem requirements way too high.

Circenses includes all other human activity - what we do once physical necessities are provided for. This is only limited by the laws of physics, imagination & desire. All this rubbish about new technology destroying jobs is fatuous & completely misunderstands human beings.

Edited November 9, 2012 by cock-eyed octopus

[Traktion]

Thought provoking post.. As the singularity takes over I think economics is going to be very different indeed.

Copyright is a huge and growing area of the law. And I believe free markets are creations of the state. Just as the marketplace in say housing in the UK is created by the government.. so can a functioning free market be for intellectual property. Of course even this breaks down if things are actually free.

I do not believe we are going to see replicators anytime soon. But on some level if we get to automated mining, to automated transportation, to automated mills, to automated factories, to automated distribution and sales.. it isn't much different. The cost will be decided mainly by the energy involved and maybe the intellectual capital. And that is the same as the replicators in Star Trek. There was one thing in their economy that people had to pay for(well the communist federation).. energy.

In Star Trek Deep Space Nine they thought of some areas where the economy still was. First off energy, and especially the dilithium crystals. Next was gold pressed latinum, which in the story the replicators could not create. Another one was authentic antiquities. I presume things that are inherently limited would have trade value, like a house close to downtown.. but even there that may not be the case. The game can totally change with virtual reality and essentially unlimited connectivity.

But it starts feeling like to make the economy as we know it work in that type of world would be totally futile. Like dropping interest rates and hoping to stimulate a credit expansion would not do much in that place.

I'm sorry, but the bit in bold isn't true. It is when states (and/or other violent organisations) get out of the way that you get free markets. Granted, you may have an regulated or 'open' market, but these are not free markets.

The only free market for intellectual property, is one based on voluntary contracts. Many patents and copyrights would wash away in this process, as they can only be maintained through involuntary contracts, enforced via state edict.

The rest of your post re energy is interesting though. However, if we manage to discover a cheap, inexhaustible, energy supply, then that will turn the world on its head too. That is why I keep a close eye on LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) science/technology progress. IMO, at some point, needing enough energy survive will be practically free, which will further demolish the cost of living (if it isn't swallowed up by future rent seekers!).

The cost of energy is already the key to many costs. It is also needed to keep warm. If we find a way to generate it at near zero cost, the implications will be massive.

[Traktion]

BTW, I thought this was worth linking: http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/11/robert-burley-disappearance-of-darkness/

'Photos of Film’s Demise: Empty Labs and Demolition Days Are Analog’s Farewell'

When Robert Burley photographed Kodak Canada’s final employee meeting in the parking lot on the last day of manufacturing in 2005, he assumed it was an isolated act of corporate downsizing — the winding down of one facility to safeguard Kodak’s other operations. He now knows he was seeing the first domino fall. Two years later, Burley was in Rochester, NY, the spiritual home and headquarters of the once-giant analog film manufacturer.

“Kodak was blowing up one huge building after the other,” says Burley a photographer and associate professor at Ryerson University’s School of Image Arts in Toronto, Canada.

But the decimation of the film industry didn’t stop with Kodak. Burley stumbled into a multi-year project for which he was to photograph the demise of multiple companies.

“A year later I was in Boston photographing Polaroid factories being torn down. To be present at these events made me realize I was witnessing not only a radical change in my medium but also a dizzying moment in history.”

Edited November 9, 2012 by Traktion

[thecrashingisles]

The only reason you build a network like this is to monetise it, indeed for Facebook, the service is irrelevant, as long as it is good enough to hold people's attention for long enough to make advertising to them worthwhile. So you have a business model based on a service that no one pays for, but the revenue comes from third parties selling their wares on the platform. This is inherently risky, because the consumer is a fickle beast - something else "cooler" will come along. And then you are left with the very hard task of persuading users to hand over cash for something that they believe is free.

The service isn't irrelevant because their claim to be a more valuable advertising medium is based on the knowledge they have about their users and their users' connections. A friend 'liking' a product on Facebook is more influential to consumers than seeing a 30 second advert somewhere else.

In terms of direct monetisation, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Look at LinkedIn which offers a premium service on a subscription basis. There would be nothing to stop Facebook doing something similar at some point in the future - especially when the infrastructure to take micropayments is fully evolved - e.g. "Click Like to donate 10p to xxx"

In any case the debate about Facebook is a distraction from wonderpup's fundamental misconception.

[Traktion]

The service isn't irrelevant because their claim to be a more valuable advertising medium is based on the knowledge they have about their users and their users' connections. A friend 'liking' a product on Facebook is more influential to consumers than seeing a 30 second advert somewhere else.

In terms of direct monetisation, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Look at LinkedIn which offers a premium service on a subscription basis. There would be nothing to stop Facebook doing something similar at some point in the future - especially when the infrastructure to take micropayments is fully evolved - e.g. "Click Like to donate 10p to xxx"

In any case the debate about Facebook is a distraction from wonderpup's fundamental misconception.

Just to note that Bitcoin already enables this sort of thing. Sure, usability is an issue for some still, but the technology is there.

Micro-payments are one of the USPs for Bitcoin.

[DeepLurker]

I do understand the business model- but ask yourself a question: If you were in a position to add billions to your revenue by imposing a small charge on those users- would you do it?

Of course- why would you not? Unless- that is- you believed that those users would not accept that charge.

So the issue is not how Facebook makes it's money- it's why they seem to leave billions of additional revenue on the table.

They know that when it comes to their users they have no pricing power at all- which is exactly the point I am making.

Low barriers to entry, low set up and running costs mean that Facebook dare not charge their users for fear that a newcomer will appear and eat their lunch. The very medium that allowed them to scale their service so fast makes them vulnerable to attack.

The interesting question here is why their users would be so outraged to pay for something they genuinely value and use. They seem to regard access to Facebook as a natural part of the online ecosystem- and would treat any attempt to charge for it as an infringement of their basic freedoms- which is a really strange perspective-given that Facebook is clearly a commercial entity driven by profit.

I'd like to point out that on Facebook's homepage (the real homepage, not the dashboard logged-in users are used to seeing) you have a signup form, with this slogan above it:

It's free and always will be.

So I think no speculation is necessary as to why they are not monetising these "billions of additional revenue"

[thecrashingisles]

Wonderpup - Your position here reminded me of another thread where someone with similar arguments finally conceded in the face of the evidence that they were mistaken. I wonder who it was.

My fear was that the sheer volume of output would drown everyone- the good and the bad. But I have been proved wrong on that and happy to be so.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=182370&st=255