Quantcast

How Facebook is Quite Possibly Becoming the Biggest Scam in Marketing and Advertising Ever

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

972828_10152291318462489_2061300421_nUpdate June 2016: Yes, this article is two years old, but Facebook just announced new huge changes to their algorithm. This article just shows how long this scam has been going on.

I told myself I wasn’t going to write an article like this, but after I came across a few more recent articles confirming that Facebook is, yet again, choking off organic reach – I’ve absolutely had it.

It’s time we face facts – Facebook is no longer a “social media” site.  It’s nothing more than a wannabe Google that’s doing anything it can to make as much money as possible by producing – nothing.  

Think about it, what does Facebook produce?  Nothing.  It was once a website people used to catch up with old friends, share photos, vent about randomness in their lives or check out what news might be going on around the world.

Now Facebook is basically nothing more than a giant billboard that uses its massive amount of users to sell as much space as it possibly can to whatever company will pay.

In your Newsfeed you now get “Suggested Posts,” which are posts that have been paid to be promoted.  Then there are the video advertisements, which almost nobody wants, but Facebook doesn’t care.

Which is funny considering Facebook says it keeps changing its algorithm to “enhance the user experience,” yet continues to places more ads (which users hate), is now using video ads (which almost every user hates) all while choking off “reach” to pages that users “Like” but are no longer seeing because of these algorithm changes.

What’s reach, you ask?  Well, essentially, it’s how many people see a particular post.  And Facebook has massively throttled it in the last few months.  Just over a ago, a page on Facebook might be seen by about 15-20% of those who “Like” it.  Now that number for most pages is down to around 1-5% for many pages.

Again, Facebook claims this is to “enhance the user experience.”  Which is total bullshit.  If Facebook cared about enhancing the user experience it wouldn’t pimp out sponsored ads in Newsfeeds or be rolling out video ads that are almost universally hated by everyone on Facebook.

What Facebook is wanting is for people who run these pages to pay to advertise and “boost” their posts.  And don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to investing money to support a business.  I get how this all works and I understand Facebook is a business that wants to make money.  But there’s just one huge problem – I don’t trust Facebook at all.  In fact, most people don’t.

Their entire advertising ploy is nothing more than a giant scam.

First, Facebook will tell page administrators to pay for ads to “increase your reach.”  Sounds logical enough, right?  Sure.  But there’s just one problem – what’s the point of having more “Likes” if Facebook continues to limit who sees what’s posted on any particular page?

I’ve spent over 3 years building up my page Right Off A Cliff to around 99k followers as I’m typing this.  Presently, only about 1-3% of those who “Like” my page see what’s posted.  Why would I pay, say $1,000 to add another 5,000 followers (just throwing that out there, I’m not sure exactly what the numbers would be) when Facebook is only going to let around 250 of those 5,000 see what I’m posting?

And that’s one big part of what Facebook is selling.  Buy ads, increase your reach!  Except after you spend hundreds, or even thousands “increasing your reach,” Facebook will simply alter their algorithm again and screw you by reducing that very same reach you paid good money to acquire.

But there’s good news!  You can then pay Facebook more money to add more “Likes” to increase your reach!

Essentially, pages are paying Facebook to gain more “Likes,” only to have Facebook later reduce how many of those “Likes” see their content.  They then want you to pay even more money to get more “Likes” – which will undoubtedly be blocked by Facebook at a later date just like before.

See what a scam this is?

Oh, but it gets worse.

You can do what they call “boosting” posts.  Basically they give you an estimated reach, depending on how much you pay, and they claim that’s how many people will see that post.

Sounds like a good deal, right?  Not really.  The costs to “boost” posts are ridiculous and the “estimated reach” is just as laughable.

Take for instance my most recent post.  If I were to “boost” it to an estimated 29,000-76,000 people (Amazing range, isn’t it?  Only about a 50,000 reader difference from lowest to highest) it would cost me $150 – for one post.

Considering I post around 5-6 articles per day, that’s about $750-900 per day to reach most of the people who “Like” my page.  Combine that with the ads they want me to buy, and Facebook essentially wants me to pay around $30,000 per month to advertise and “boost” my posts.

That’s insane.

But now let’s break this scam down even more.

Facebook wants page administrators and businesses to pay to advertise to “increase their reach” (aka get more “Likes”) so that more people see their content.  But then Facebook will later decide to change their algorithm to limit that reach, forcing page administrators and businesses to pay even more to get even more “Likes” to – once again – expand the reach that they already paid perviously to expand, yet had choked off by Facebook.

Oh, but if you want to ensure that your posts are seen by all of your fans, Facebook offers page administrators and businesses the ability to “boost” posts.  For an incredibly large fee page administrators and businesses can boost these posts to those who “Like” these pages (you know, the “Likes” that were paid for through buying ads on Facebook).  Then possibly most of those who “Like” your page might finally see your posts.

So, Facebook is charging pages to get “Likes.”  Then they’re choking off reach to those “Likes” via algorithm changes.  Then they’re charging the same pages even more to “boost” their posts to ensure that the “Likes” that they already paid for are actually seeing their content.

And I’m not even getting into the fact that Facebook offers zero promises or guarantees on anything.  They’re wanting people to give them money, then Facebook is giving you the “data” telling you whether or not what you’re paying for is actually working.

Oh, and they have almost zero customer service.  If you send them an email, you might get a response – a week or two later.  Good luck finding a phone number to get through to a human being for any issues you might experience.

Then let’s look at the stupid way in which Facebook determines “quality content.”  Their belief is that the more content you, the users, interact with (aka “Share” and “Like”) is the ultimate determining factor in determining what you want to see.

Except, what if you’re like me and you don’t “Like” or “Share” much?  What if you read a headline that you don’t “Like?”  Why would a liberal “Like” a headline along the lines of, “Rush Limbaugh Attacks President Obama?”

Someone might read it and really like the article, but you’re not going to “Like” that headline.  So, what this does is it forces pages to go over the top with the headlines.  Which is why you’re seeing more and more websites with headlines like, “Super Horrible Disgusting Limbaugh Hammered by Superman Hero Jon Stewart.”

That might get more people to click “Like.”

This also means that people are essentially going to just be fed “information” that they already agree with.  Because we all know the best way to properly inform a society is to only give people the information that they’re predisposed to agree with.

We also can’t ignore how often Facebook screws up.  There have been times where none of the pages I work with were showing “Share” or “Like” activity.

So, Facebook wants people to pay huge amounts of money to advertise on a website that’s almost constantly plagued by errors.  Then on top of that, they offer essentially no form of customer service to address any issues.

Then we can’t forget Facebook suppression.  What’s that, you ask?  Well, basically Facebook is becoming famous for suppressing certain words or topics that they deem “not quality.”

I’m sure this article will suffer that fate.  After all, Facebook wouldn’t allow an article bashing their massive advertising scam to actually get publicity on their site now, would they?  I’m sure my “Seen By” numbers will be far lower for this article than any other I post in the next 24 hours.

It’s just an absolute joke.  Facebook claims these “algorithm” changes are to better improve the user experience because if they didn’t block certain content the average user would have over 1,500 posts per day flying through their Newsfeed.  Well, luckily Facebook offers a unique tool on all of their posts that allows users to block, hide or unfollow whatever content they don’t want to see.

So, wouldn’t it make more sense to just let every post be seen by the user and let the user determine what they do or don’t want to see?  Makes sense to me.  But then again, that wouldn’t fit into their advertising scam.

And while this is legal, it’s absolutely disgusting.  Facebook can sit there and say all it wants that this is about improving the experience for the user, but the truth is it’s nothing more than a massive scam to extort billions of dollars in ad revenue from page owners and businesses.

Which, for me, it’s not a matter of paying money to advertise – I’m fine with that.  It’s that I don’t trust for one moment that the money I would pay to Facebook would do anything at all for my site.  Because what’s the point of paying for ads, to get more “Likes,” only to have Facebook limit my reach later on – forcing me to pay more?

It’s a con, it’s a scam and I cannot wait for the day when a real alternative to Facebook emerges.  And I get the feeling that I’m not the only one.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail
The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Pipercat

    You’re not the only one and I’m surprised Manny didn’t get here first.

  • Jan Whitebear

    That’s kind of what sellers have been saying about eBay for over a decade now. But it never happens. eBay is the biggest thing going with the most traffic. As is Facebook to “social media”. Most likely there is nothing that will be coming along to replace Facebook any time soon.

  • $515717

    I’m still trying to figure out how a relatively uncommon medical term that I used INSIDE an email just happened to cause me to start getting blurbs on Facebook for support groups and other things connected with that malady. I repeat that this was not in the subject line and it’s not something widely known. I’d never seen anything about it before I sent that email. It started shortly after I’d sent it. I have Comcast for mail and Internet, for whatever that’s worth. It sure seemed like some corporate interest was reading my personal email. Anyone else had an experience like that?

    • hackermom

      this happens to me all the time.

    • Silvia Aldredge

      Any of the Google mail programs regularly search your email for keywords to target advertising to you. Email is simply not private correspondence.

      • $515717

        But I don’t use GMAIL or do you mean Google is searching ALL emails?

      • Silvia Aldredge

        If you have a Google i.d., they are searching yahoo, rocketmail, gmail, etc. etc. Microsoft does the same for hotmail. You just have to assume email is not really completely private.

    • Marilyn

      Yes, I did. I mentioned to a friend in a post on my wall that I had vitamin D tested. I got a comment on this post from a college professor on the other side of the country where I have never been, don’t know, have not connection with. The professor did research on vitamin D and I think he may have sold a kit to do at home vitamin D testing. I googled this professor and he is, in fact, a researcher at that university. Only FB could have alerted him to my post to a friend. There was no other connection between us.

    • CherMoe

      Your first mistake is “Comcast.”

      • $515717

        My late husband set up everything and I’m afraid to change stuff because I don’t know what I’m doing and we don’t have as many choices here, I think.

  • I Hate Facebook Too

    Google Plus

  • Mischievious

    Say a new site pops up and becomes popular. How long you think it will take for Facebook to buy it. We are stuck unfortunately…

  • OneMadSquirrel

    I’m here via a post on a friend’s FB page.
    You make some valid points, but you said the same thing several times in this article. Very annoying. I can only conclude that you were a. Drunk. b. Getting paid by the word. c. A very bad writer.
    In any case, how you got 69,000 FB likes is beyond me.

    • It may be a year later that I read your post. And the bullshit you spewed STILL stinks.

    • I saw that, too. I initially thought the same… But, after looking more closely, he “repeated” himself in the closing buildup.. Meaning that the points he made were spread out and readers may have not easily added all of them up, together.. By putting them back to back, in closing, he made it clear that there is a pattern that exists, that these are not all just random and coincidental occurrences.

  • Jayz

    Can’t agree more. FB and Google will engulf us all.. smh.

  • Parker Gabriel

    Has Mark Zuckerberg lost control of his own creation?

    Or is HE primarily responsible for all the unwanted changes that are making his site lose its honesty or integrity?

    • CherMoe

      No, he sold his soul to the devil. And of course he has much to do with all the “unwanted changes.” I don’t think he has any honesty or integrity left since he got rich. Happens to 99% of them.

    • $515717

      I’m glad I moved out of Palo Alto before he totally consumed the place.

  • Your first mistake is using the Boost Post button. Use power editor like real marketers do and control who sees your post.

  • Voice of Reason

    Facebook is not forcing anyone to pay for boosting or charging to use the site, anyone is free to do nothing and pay nothing just as they are free to charge. Its a business, they don’t owe anyone anything, if enough people dislike them or the way they do things and find a better alternative that will be the next big thing, and FB will be the next Myspace 😉

  • Akule

    Just like life invader from GTA IV lol

  • cheeseitwithbacon

    First you do the progressive cause a disservice with your completely redundant rant. You sound more like Rush Limbaugh than a rational liberal.
    But let’s stick to your basic complaint: you don’t like FB because you think they are making you buy ads from them to promote your page.

    That’s is your problem, literally, not FB’s.

    So let’s address this by saying you don’t understand what reach is. Reach is a media concept that describes a potential household/people/CPU universe, not an actual page view as you describe it. For instance, MTV claims to have a reach of 85 million TV homes in the USA but never has a single MTV program come close to having 85 million actual viewers of one of their shows. 250k viewers on average is probably more like it.
    So if you don’t like the idea of FB controlling your potential Likes then don’t build your “business” in their universe.
    But otherwise I agree that FB is useless, pointless and produces nothing. (And I love seeing him visit the White House in a suit and tie. At least he knows who is actually more important than him in that setting.)
    But the best irony of all was seeing this website’s “Like” us on FB widget next to your article/rant. Now THAT I LIKE!

  • Jeremy

    I agree. It reminds me… I went to a restaurant today, bought a hamburger, fries and a drink. A few hours later, I was hungry again. So I went back to the same restaurant and HAD to buy more food from the restaurant. I bet that I might even get hungry tomorrow and go to this same restaurant again. What a scam!

    This restaurant is making me buy food from them, then a few hours later, I’m hungry again. I couldn’t possibly cook my own food or open my own restaurant. I think the restaurant should give me free food or at least lower their prices. They owe me that much at least.

  • swood

    Maybe it’s time you read “Who Owns The Future” by Jaron Lanier. This situation was made inevitable the moment we accepted Facebook as “Free and always will be.” There is no FREE. There is only the price of advertising.

    • You mean I have to read a book in order to understand what I already know? Or he needs to read the book in order to explain WHY fb is doing it? You mean ONE word, “money” doesn’t cover it, enough? A whole book had to be written to explain it????

  • Kitten1313

    This article is ridiculous. The author sounds like a petulant child who has never had the benefit of even the most rudimentary business or marketing class. Facebook – a FREE social networking site – has no obligation to “produce” anything. Sounds to me like you want Facebook to provide you with FREE exposure, but disparage it, a publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to, for trying to make money. Facebook’s only obligation is to its shareholders, and that obligation is to make money.

    • CherMoe

      We’ll see how much you like it when everything you want to say is censored and things you want to see are limited, because priority is given to corporations and the “payers.”

      • Kitten1313

        FB has censored photos I’ve shared. By signing up for FB, I agree to its terms of service. If it bothers me so much, I will leave and find another way to connect with my “audience”. FB isn’t the government; there is no right to free speech.

    • $515717

      It isn’t really “free” since one’s info is sold to many advertisers who pay FB for exposure and advertising lists which they, in turn may share, for a fee, with other advertisers. If you think that access to this many people is being done “free” just for the social good then I don’t want to speculate where your head resides. Your reply sounds like it was copied from some Libertarian right wing think book. All old rhetoric we’ve heard 1000 times before.

      • Kitten1313

        You should read my OP more carefully, as I make specific reference to the fact the FB is a publicly traded company and therefore has an obligation to its shareholders to make money. Obviously, since most of us choose not to pay to promote our pages and posts, the money is made through advertising which is targeted by using the information that we voluntarily provide to FB.

      • $515717

        Maybe you should read MY posts more carefully as I never disagreed that it’s a publicly traded company with fiduciary responsibility to make money. And I never disagreed that one knows what it is when one signs up.

    • Mule

      As has been mentioned here, it isn’t “free”. I paid for the service by giving them information about me, which they sell. So if anything, they owe me money.

      Also, Facebook isn’t providing anything. The reason people come there is to see things that they like, aggregated. Again, the people have already paid to play. But instead of seeing what they have already selected to see, it is being filtered and controlled. You’re better off manually visiting each page you like, or the websites of each page. In other words, Facebook is failing to provide the nominal service they lured me to the site with in the first place. Forget what the businesses want and expect, what about me, the consumer? I’m being sold two or more times, in exchange for what?

      • Kitten1313

        The simple answer is leave Facebook. Again, they’ve offered you nothing but a social networking site, defined however they want it to be defined and subject to change in any way they want it to change. You voluntarily signed up for FB, presumably having read the terms of service and privacy and understanding the above-parameters. In consideration for this service, yes, you have given them information to sell. You made that choice, they owe you nothing.

      • Mule

        You’re a great corporate apologist, but that isn’t the whole story of the free market. At the end of the day, my eyeballs are more important to Facebook, financially, than Facebook is to me. I am the one with a financially valued asset, Facebook has to give their product away. I give them my valued asset for free, in exchange, they damn well better deliver something I want to use, or I will leave Facebook, absolutely.

      • Archer Tuttle

        “You’re a great corporate apologist.”
        Yes! I think this is a true evaluation of Kitten1313

    • You are the epitome of ignorance and idiocy, kitty kat.. YOU are the reason that things like this are possible.. You are blind and happy to be so

    • Archer Tuttle

      Facebook are obliged to support their claims as to what they are selling you when you enter a contract to pay them for advertising your business on their media platform.
      I don’t think the article is ridiculous. I think you don’t like the conclusions of his analysis.

  • The Anti Bridezilla

    So your proof that FB is a scam is the fact that they’re analytics don’t show your own personal article sharing activity? As an internet marketer, you wouldn’t want it to show your own sharing activities as it would be irrelevant to your true reach. And you should know that of course it scrubs data from the site/page owner. More than likely I’m assuming your personal account is also an admin account. So, by default all activity coming from a page admin needs to be ignored because it would create false data.

    What if you/all admins share each article 200 times in a week, but shares from non admins is only 20 times in a week. In theory, you have a lot of traffic if you see “all activity”, but in truth, your reach isn’t what it seems. Why would you want the inflated numbers when they’re not going to help you?

    • You are dumber than dirt if you think that “analytics dont show sharing” is IN ANY WAY, even FRACTIONALLY relevant or weighted in his claim.. Just stupid.. so strange.. Were you reading a different article?

  • Danny S

    Your rant is extremely uneducated. I can’t even begin. First, please remove your tin foil hat; I think it’s blocking logic from entering your brain.

    I came upon this article from a Facebook Share (weird, huh?), and I’m not surprised that people are sharing it. Like you say, people love to Like and Share things that fit their existing beliefs. So, make sure you don’t confuse that sharing behavior with thinking you actually made any valid points or changed any minds. You didn’t.

    One major fallacy you seem to imply is that Facebook should “just let every post be seen by the user and let the user determine what they do or don’t want to see.” That is literally impossible. The average user has hundreds of friends and likes hundreds of brand Pages. There is absolutely no way for a user to see all of those posts, especially if any of them are sharing 7 articles per day (way too much – ask any knowledgeable marketer who knows how to use Facebook.). So can we agree that Facebook needs a method to prioritize content due to the volume of sharing? That’s what you’re seeing in action. It’s smart, and it’s necessary. And yes, ads are, and should be, a part of this. Just because people “Like” your Page, shouldn’t mean you are entitled you to showing them 7 articles per day – or even one. If they want to see all of your posts, Facebook gives them an option to do so and receive notifications when you post. Maybe if you wrote better content, people would exercise this option.

    Another point you try to make, redundantly, is that “paying for reach” means that you are paying for people to Like your Page. If that’s what you think you’re paying for, then you’re dong it wrong. Any reasonably intelligent marketer understands that a Page Like does not promise future reach. So, rather than getting grumpy and writing rants about it, marketers are evolving to understand that paying for reach is simply an opportunity to expose highly targeted users (again, if you’re doing it right) to a marketing message. They’re not concerning themselves with whether someone “Likes” the Page as a result – and they (you) shouldn’t.

    Honestly, I could go on with all the misinformed crap you’ve written here, like:
    – assuming that users clicking to an article doesn’t count as engagement to Facebook’s algorithm
    – not realizing how a share button/counter works

    – not understanding how online advertising works, how it’s priced, and why

    – throwing out $30,000 as a number you don’t want to pay for advertising and blaming Facebook that you don’t want to pay for something that it’s not making you pay

    – there’s just so much wrong with this article

    Basically, don’t be mad because Facebook isn’t what you want it to be; evolve with it and be smart in using it. And please learn about something before you rant about it. This is just awful.

  • Jeffrey Cleary

    “Now Facebook is basically nothing more than a giant billboard that uses its massive amount of users to sell as much space as it possibly can to whatever company will pay.”

    And yet, here I found your article via a Facebook post, and upon reading your article, I notice the Facebook Like & Share buttons. I can’t help but notice the conflict you must have with Facebook’s ability to gain exposure.

    Don’t misunderstand, I’m not a fan of the billboard either, and having tried out their advertising options, I haven’t found it worth the investment. But then again, neither is Google’s Adwords, too much click-spam.

  • Pingback: People Over Politics – The Anti-Social Network()

  • Tom Edwards

    The thing that is still not clear — not in this article, nor from anywhere else — is how even GENUINE “likes” are going to boost anyone’s business. If I am selling a product or service, and I pay Facebook to promote my business with click-through advertising banners, how does someone “liking” my page put money into my cash register? Is Facebook of the belief that online merchants should treat their stable of fans (“Facebook likers”) as they would a mailing list? In other words, to put this more simply: I don’t see any purpose or payoff for even the supposedly LEGITIMATE Facebook ads, let alone the fakery.

  • youre article is cool man but get over it. move on seriously did you not see this coming and i hope you’ve expanded your network to as many social networks you can. i dont see any linkedin, youtube, twitter, or instagram links on the left there….fb is still a viable resource for network marketing and frankly paid ads for list building. and really, get a plug in or something to collapse this comment thread bc my browser went wacko trying to load all these comments, social plug ins and ironically advertisements on this page.

  • Brian Quass

    Zuckerberg is the new Bernie Madoff. I have over 1,000 “likes” acquired
    through Facebook page promotion and not one of them appears to be real.
    Of course, Facebook won’t let me contact them directly to find out, but
    none has liked me enough to contact ME — and they have yet to return
    one message that I have sent to them (to what Facebook calls their
    “other” folder, whatever that is).

  • Malty17

    My recent experience with Facebook ‘post boosting’ as been similar. Facebook claimed that by boosting the article I’d increase the reach to between 22,000 – 45,000 people. I check back near the end of the run only to see that the reach was less than 4,000. Facebook analytics also stated that 1,000 people had watched the video… and yet our analytics for the site showed NO increase in viewership from before the boost. I’m beginning to think that boosting is a total scam.

  • thowedthanka

    “quite possibly”? You can’t even use Facebook unless you surrender your identity.

  • Pingback: Understanding the New Facebook CPC Formula()

  • also, my wager is that you have Asperger’s Syndrome. Would explain, both, the “excessive”(to the unenlightened) “rant” as well as the having the insight to be able to perspective shift, so seamlessly, in order to put all the pieces together, as you did… Intelligence is useless without insight and imagination, which lead to cleverness and “understanding” where others can never have it

  • JUST NOW found another, as well. Facebook removes ability to @ tag any of a page’s fan base, from the page OR the page’s admin’s own personal account… SO shady

  • Mothra

    This is an old article but I am just doing a little research on it–I am convinced when I pay $20 to boost a post for my organization, it doesn’t reach my targeted audience at all, based on the folks who are “liking” the post. It looks instead that I am paying for eyeballs (which may or may not be real people!) in other parts of the world, not in my own state…

  • Richard Sievert

    Most people just use it to stay in touch with friends and as far a business are concerned I haven’t a clue. Never look gift horses in the mouth or you’re going to get bitten. Business in general to me are way out of touch with the common people, there not trying hard enough to understand the person there selling to. For instance a starving person gets a call from a credit repair man, but he cares less that his client is hungry? Ever here the words how are you, OK sometimes helping another person with some grocery money goes a long way on face book they tell other’s peter fed Paul and owe he’s a debt relief person let’s give him a call! Now just keep trying to sell plastic to a manican as you’ve been doing you’ll go far forest!

  • Pingback: The Business Perspective – Internet Vs. Us()

  • The RINJ Foundation

    Sadly we have pretty much the same experience with Facebook. We are advertising for a few years and building a significant amount of experience. We have discussed campaigns wit other advertisers and compared ‘call-to-action’ metrics. The consensus is that advertising on Facebook does not get results in terms of any call to action besides “Likes” which we suspect Facebook manipulates.

    We have run a few experiments by abruptly ceasing advertising, placing our own tracker on he page and noticed that we accumulated a greater number of “unlikes” than visits to the page. As soon as we restarted the advertising campaigns, even small ones, the bleeding of likes stopped. The likes increased, even greater than hits to the page. We just made a decision to place our advertising dollars elsewhere.

    We are a genuine NGO non-profit and are always strapped for cash as the cost of medicine and health care instruments climb through the roof. We know Facebook ripped us off.

    The promises of “reach” are absolute nonsense. COmpared to TV, Radio and Print there is no governing authority and no board of measurement that has any credibility to verify advertising.

    Facebook is extremely restrictive about advertising content because it has only contributor content as an asset. But sometimes te restrictions are absurd. There is no functioning redress for any problem.

    We contemplate seeking out class-mates and briging a class action suit against these rogue gangsters who have absolutely no conscience and no commitment to customer care.

    There are other facets of our experience with Facebook which have been documented in Wikipedia with respect to Facebook’s’ “rape pages”and child exploitation policies. We won’t go into that here but our knowledge of dealing face-to-face with executives of this company has an alarming tinge. .

  • Pingback: Facebook Pages 2016 – The Battle for Reach | Steven James Designer, Presenter, DJ & Music Technology Expert()