Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg


Recommended Posts

Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg

Zuck.jpg

We knew Facebook was eager for new revenue streams. We just didn't know they were this eager.

If you try to send founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg a message on Facebook, Mashable discovered Thursday, the social network may offer to keep the message out of his "Other" Inbox ? for a cool $100.

In our tests from multiple accounts, it appeared to be the case that users only get this message if they'renot one of Zuck's 16 million followers. That, however, could still be coincidental.

Keen Facebook observers will recognize this as a variant on the $1 pay-to-message plan that the social network has been experimenting with for months. The company indicated at the time that it would be experimenting with other prices, so it's possible we're starting to see the fruits of that.

There were sporadic reports in December of Facebook charging various people $100 for the service, but this is the first time we've seen it ? and certainly the first time we've seen it applied to the founder.

The "Other" inbox is Facebook's dumping ground for all messages it guesses you won't want to read urgently. It's been controversial for some time, as most users are entirely unaware of its existence ? and many have been known to discover messages they really wish they'd read at the time, such as job offers.

The $1 pay-to-message test was first announced in December, and was described by the company as a test. It allows anyone to message any other person's inbox directly for that one-time fee, whether they are friends or not. It was derided by some users as Facebook spam. (However, it is only possible to receive one such message per week.)

Here's what Facebook had to say in a statement from a spokesperson: "We are testing some extreme price points to see what works to filter spam."

Can you see a situation in which you'd pay the extreme price point of $100? Let us know in the comments.

Source: Mashable

Regardless of it's intention I think this is a terrible idea. Facebook should simply:

  1. Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
  2. Allow Friends of Friends to message you for free for a limited number of messages, perhaps to explain their connection so they can add you and then
  3. Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
  4. Remove the capability for Applications to message your inbox, in any capacity whatsoever, keep using the Jabber protocol to allow chat clients to be unaffected by this change.
  5. As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
  6. As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with [email protected], most the addresses are stupidly unusable ([email protected] anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
  7. As part of 2, allow this number to be set by the user, including the option to allow unlimited messages, or no messages from "friends of friends" at all
  8. As part of 1, restrict people and companies who add friends to advertise to them, from sending messages (or make wall posts on the victims walls) at all for a certain period as punishment for spamming users
  9. As part of 1, add a feature allowing users to write a brief summary in the "Add friend" dialog so they can suggest a reason for adding them, incase a user isn't a "Friend of friend". This was previously possible before the Timeline approach anyway, so it should be no trouble to re-use the relevant code.

Costs no money and sorts out all the problems, as well as removing the need for the "Other" folder

  • Like 1

Regardless of it's intention I think this is a terrible idea. Facebook should simply:

  1. Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
  2. Allow Friends of Friends to message you for free for a limited number of messages, perhaps to explain their connection so they can add you and then
  3. Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
  4. Remove the capability for Applications to message your inbox, in any capacity whatsoever, keep using the Jabber protocol to allow chat clients to be unaffected by this change.
  5. As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
  6. As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with [email protected], most the addresses are stupidly unusable ([email protected] anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
  7. As part of 2, allow this number to be set by the user, including the option to allow unlimited messages, or no messages from "friends of friends" at all
  8. As part of 1, restrict people and companies who add friends to advertise to them, from sending messages (or make wall posts on the victims walls) at all for a certain period as punishment for spamming users
  9. As part of 1, add a feature allowing users to write a brief summary in the "Add friend" dialog so they can suggest a reason for adding them, incase a user isn't a "Friend of friend". This was previously possible before the Timeline approach anyway, so it should be no trouble to re-use the relevant code.

Costs no money and sorts out all the problems, as well as removing the need for the "Other" folder

Enough of this friend nonsense. I say we just delete Facebook and use email. I don't get spam emails anyway.

Yeah...Like he's gonna read your message and reply to you...LOL...What a joke. The minute he sees that message he will delete it and you will be $100 in the hole.

And Enron, yes I agree with you 100%. I think Facebook is stupid and nothing but an excuse service to breach your privacy and learn everything they can about you and everyone you know. A very dangerous place to be sharing your personal life on.

And Enron, yes I agree with you 100%. I think Facebook is stupid and nothing but an excuse service to breach your privacy and learn everything they can about you and everyone you know. A very dangerous place to be sharing your personal life on.

Someone said that Facebook reached the goal that communist governments wanted years ago - to create a database of citizens, their lives, needs, fears etc.

  • Like 2
Can you see a situation in which you'd pay the extreme price point of $100? Let us know in the comments.

In relative terms, if you need to have a letter/document/parcel sent quickly to someone on the other side of the planet, then I'd say a hundred dollars is about an average price DHL or Fedex would charge you; it's certainly not extreme.

I, personally, wouldn't pay $100 for a one-way e-mail. However, if the price entailed a reply, then I'd be ready to pay even more for such an option. To ask some guru a question, why not? Warren Baffett charges like half a million for a chance to have a lunch with him.

  • Like 1

The "$100 a message" thing was already posted on Neowin a few weeks ago. That said, they said that they're testing it and experimenting with different price points. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they either let a select amount of users (in this case Mark Zuckerberg - it could be someone equally famous) set a price (with a higher top price for famous people) or Facebook simply set one price that is higher for celebs.

You guys do realise web sites like facebook can be useful right ?

One of my best friend is now living in France. Another of my best friend is now living in BC, Canada. I have a lot of family living in USA. Facebook and skype is a great way to keep in touch with everyone without spending money on long distance calls. It's a great tool with a terrible UI.

You guys do realise web sites like facebook can be useful right ?

One of my best friend is now living in France. Another of my best friend is now living in BC, Canada. I have a lot of family living in USA. Facebook and skype is a great way to keep in touch with everyone without spending money on long distance calls. It's a great tool with a terrible UI.

While I agree with Skype is great way to see people while your talking to them. Great way to reassure parents when their kids are on the other side of the country how they are doing, eating etc.

Meanwhile just catching up with friends, email has been around for many years and works perfectly well. I can't see why using FB to keep in touch offers anything different. Plus there are plenty of IM clients out there that offer more if that's your thing too.

You guys do realise web sites like facebook can be useful right ?

One of my best friend is now living in France. Another of my best friend is now living in BC, Canada. I have a lot of family living in USA. Facebook and skype is a great way to keep in touch with everyone without spending money on long distance calls. It's a great tool with a terrible UI.

just email...

Skype is neat if you want to see the person. I use it to talk to my sister.

While I agree with Skype is great way to see people while your talking to them. Great way to reassure parents when their kids are on the other side of the country how they are doing, eating etc.

Meanwhile just catching up with friends, email has been around for many years and works perfectly well. I can't see why using FB to keep in touch offers anything different. Plus there are plenty of IM clients out there that offer more if that's your thing too.

Well it let people share important events in their life without the need to bother everyone everytime.

I have a big family. 26 uncles/aunts. About 100 cousins. Couple of friends. They are all scattered over north america. NY, Quebec, Ontario, BC, Florida, California, Vermont and France.

It's just not realistic to contact everyone everytime you have something to share. Even by mail it requires to send more than 100 mails everytime and bother people with things that might not interest them.

This year i left my job and accepted a new one. Sending over 100 mails just to tell that fells 1990 to me. It's more simple to post the information on my facebook so people who cares can see it.

Some people say the stupidest things.

I didn't even think people really used email anymore, other than getting subscribed stuff and notifications.

Email isn't even close to being something good for socializing or keeping up with family/friends.

Way too slow, plus the chance of the person reading it is slim to none, more than likely not right away, that's for sure.

I'm not even a fan of Facebook, but like I've said before, if that's where your friends and family are, then you have to be also.

And as for the topic here, if Marc wants to charge 100 bucks, good for him. I would, then at least he wont get a ton of em.

And Facebook should charge something for people that are not a contact to send you a message.

You guys do realise web sites like facebook can be useful right ?

One of my best friend is now living in France. Another of my best friend is now living in BC, Canada. I have a lot of family living in USA. Facebook and skype is a great way to keep in touch with everyone without spending money on long distance calls. It's a great tool with a terrible UI.

Doesn't mean Facebook can't be replaced with alternatives or even services predating Facebook.

Instant Messaging and emailing come to mind.

Heck, even a blog for sharing your holiday pictures to friends and family without sending dozens of emails.

Way more personal, too.

I do use Facebook, but I think it's mostly a "hey look at my cool life" billboard rather than a proper communication tool.

I like the theory of the service, but hmm...

Very related video:

Glassed Silver:ios

I will totally admit, until I read this, I never knew about the Other inbox myself. :laugh: Not a big Facebooker myself, been using it more as a result of finding it really helpful during Hurricane Sandy, to keep track of friends and family and get updates on power, etc., but I really did not know about the Other box until reading this article.

I had 21 messages, and I have to say, they were not messages I really care either way that i read or not. So it does a decent job with the filtering.

As far as charging $100 to send a message, really hope this is some sort of joke.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!