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

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!