Facebook Is Testing A New Kind Of Spam Filter That's So Crazy It Might Just Work http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-charges-100-to-send-a-message-2013-1/comments en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:24:12 -0500 Nicholas Carlson http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510ee23d6bb3f7de0500002b c0lsndrs Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:18:37 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510ee23d6bb3f7de0500002b this site is my inhalation , real wonderful style and design and perfect content material . c0lsndrs http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f110a9ecad04ae56000023 lolhipster Sat, 12 Jan 2013 02:28:41 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f110a9ecad04ae56000023 You had a chance with Diaspora. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f04ea569bedd140500001f christmasgill Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:40:53 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f04ea569bedd140500001f If they want people to adopt facebook as their main email address then you need to be able to talk to people even if you're not 'friends'. If you have to pay to do that on facebook, no one will adopt it as their email service, they'll stay with every free email service there is out there, AOL, hotmail, gmail, the list is endless. As for filtering out spam, for a free address if you don't buy stuff online using that address or give it to random people on the internet, you won't receive spam. So if facebook actually thinks that charging to send a message will succeed in taking over as the biggest email service, they're wrong. People freaked out when there were rumors of paying $1 a month to use all of facebook. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0333869bedd1d3a00001b rp Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:43:52 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0333869bedd1d3a00001b I like the idea, but I'd reccomend changing it to have some sort of increasing cost -- cause a dollar is alot of money for some people who just want to message an aquantiance. Like if you send 1 message a month to a non friend, its free. the second message is 10 cents. the 5th is a dollar. the twentieth is 10 dollars. They could also change the amount based on how real their algorithms think the account is (ie charge more if they believe its a fake / spam account). http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f02f29eab8ea1d1d00000c Dave Boudreau Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:26:33 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f02f29eab8ea1d1d00000c @nicholas - are you sure you're not connected? Do you have any mutual connections with Zuckerberg? I ask because I wonder if this is quasi-related to the Randi Zuckerberg clusterfuck from a few weeks ago when she thought someone had posted a private photo when in fact, that photo legitamately showed up in her newsfeed because there was a random mutual friend who was tagged invovled. either that, or I think it's a haux. A hundred dollars seems like a very arbitrary number and is pretty cheap considering you are getting an email in front of one of the most powerful people in tech. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0247aeab8eaa902000022 Jay Blongz Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:40:58 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0247aeab8eaa902000022 Hire a crew and get started on it http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0245cecad04ea1e000032 Jay Blongz Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:40:28 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0245cecad04ea1e000032 I love this idea! Spammers are not going to pay to spam. I'd also like this feature for friends who nag me with their Windows support requests....$5 a message. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0229769bedddd14000024 Its worth it Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:32:55 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f0229769bedddd14000024 Telling Mark Suckerberg to Fuck off.......... Priceless.... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01ff76bb3f72d7b000031 ~Eric Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:21:43 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01ff76bb3f72d7b000031 I guess, if you are marketing/adverting and/or soliciting for monetary gain or promotion (message or graphical image with incentive), it would be justifiable to charge a minimum fee. I would even charge a little more to be able to get a specific list of people/group that may be more susceptible to your champagne. Example: If I have a soda to promote, I maybe would like to be able to send a message to specific group of people who "liked" a specific competitor brand or activity, if it benefited me. Or maybe a specific group in a certain location, certain age, sex, etc. And charge even more to ensure that the message was opened and viewed/read, links clicked, etc. (if it is in message form). These are only some examples of maximizing the cost of service. In all fairness, this type of action (sending messages to multiple, random individuals you do not know) should only be reserved for “business accounts” who registered/agreed to perform this specific act. “Personal accounts” should just be given a warning if a certain number of messages are sent to people they do not know, within a certain time (with consequences explained). Or who have been blocked a certain number of times within a defined time frame by another member. How the member accepts and/or reacts to this “intrusion” in their messages is a different story? But resistance maybe easily be subdued if given some sort of compensation for their troubles (maybe money (%) or a discount from other champagnes from other businesses that have not reached them, etc.) http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01dcb6bb3f70c79000039 We need a do no EVIL open source clone of Zuckbook Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:12:27 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01dcb6bb3f70c79000039 Zuckbook is just a clone of Myspace, Friendster, Orkut, etc. Google Plus is a loser so far. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01c2a6bb3f71d79000004 Time for someone to make a new open source clone of Myspace Friendster, etc Nazibook is becoming too powerful Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:05:30 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01c2a6bb3f71d79000004 Zuckbook is just another clone of Myspace, Friendster, etc. we need more a more open sourced do no evil clone. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01698ecad046804000028 theanphibian Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:41:44 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50f01698ecad046804000028 I was active with Facebook around 2006/2007, and then I pretty much stopped as their world domination plans mounted. However, I still frequently use it to message friends. For obvious reasons, it's easier to find the person and it feels more informal. I don't think they would push this on friend-to-friend messages (we would just find another option in that case), but just on principle, it would be hard to look you associate in the eye and with a straight face tell him/her that you paid to send a message.