Top
Best
New

Posted by AshleysBrain 7 hours ago

Facebook Pages require paid subscription to post more than two links per month(mastodon.gamedev.place)
386 points | 336 commentspage 2
arjie 5 hours ago|
I created a new public group and posted three links from my blog to it in the space of 2 minutes without being charged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtUvHF02lx4

Therefore "Facebook now charging to post more than 2 links a month" is false. It appears that this is some restriction applied to organic marketing.

chihuahua 5 hours ago|
> posted three links from my blog to it

I think the article says you can't post links from your FB page to external sites. What you're describing is the opposite: links from outside FB to an FB page. Of course they don't mind when you bring traffic to FB.

nunez 3 hours ago||
I really hope this makes business websites great again. And using Google Maps to publish business updates. The number of times I've gone to a business during their open hours only to learn that they're closed and that the update was published to Facebook or Instagram is absurd.
dofm 5 hours ago||
The chosen thresholds are a bit absurd — e.g. if it was five rather than two I think authentic users would barely notice — but this actually might be what is needed to make Facebook useful again for people.

The amount of fake link spam, "link in comments" spam, misleading shit, is endless.

No amount of anti-spam technology is going to help. Cold hard cash requirement might do something about it.

If you assume that the only reason to run a fake celebrity page, for example, is to mislead users into some action, this might help there. Though actually what is needed there is a similar price pattern on posting email addresses.

xp84 5 hours ago||
Don’t forget the other big fraud vector:

Bot 1: “I have been using the services of Mr Bob John who is a financial advisor, he has made me $70,000 in the past six months. Very trustworthy”

Bot 2: “Oh wow! Will you please share how I can contact him?”

Bot 1: “sure, you can message him on Telegram. His username is BobJohn983739257”

Bot 3: “I have also used Mr Bob John services. He has been a reliable and faithful advisor.”

dofm 5 hours ago||
Yeah — this is largely the dominant evolution of 419 fraud isn't it? Rarely very bespoke scams.

I think you could more or less instaban users who mention Telegram and nothing of value would be lost.

I see comment likes and replies from users called "Congratulations you've won…" or "Message me to win your prize" and if you report those, they are actually pretty much always removed (easy pattern I guess).

But nobody seems to have any luck with reporting fake celebrity scams, to the point that if you are a well-known user who has more comments than you can reply to, you more or less have to regularly post a video saying "I will never message you directly".

pinevale 5 hours ago||
> The chosen thresholds are a bit absurd

The threshold isn't for your grandpa, it's for Facebook Pages, which are basically landing pages for businesses on Facebook. And I think it's chosen very deliberately: so that you can set up your page for free, promote it, and then realize you need to pay to keep it alive.

dofm 5 hours ago||
> The threshold isn't for your grandpa, it's for Facebook Pages

Yes, I understood this, thanks.

It doesn't at all change my point: one of Facebook's biggest problems is deceptive pages that clone user content for clout, mislead users and then ultimately direct them for scams.

If you set a limit of five posts a month without paying, you would perhaps only punish fake pages, which are a high volume game.

pinevale 4 hours ago||
And my point is that they don't want to punish scammers, they want to get money from businesses. In that view, the limit is not absurd, it's pretty carefully calibrated to make sure that every business with an active Facebook Page needs to pay (but not before they get set up).
tapvt 6 hours ago||
My facebook account was taken over by someone, but the safeguards locked it down. I can't access it. Neither, hopefully, can the bad actor.

I don't miss it, though I feel uncomfortable about the situation. Recovery has not been worth the time involved.

What sucks is that now I can't see a whole ton of local content: local event organizers, small businesses, municipal offices and agencies, community groups, etc. have all consolidated on "facebook" as where every announcement goes.

I hope they continue to make it a more obviously hostile walled garden and that organizations of all kinds move away. The network effect it has may be hard to overcome, however.

alex1138 5 hours ago|
You can't see it because Zuckerberg in his fucking benevolence has decreed you need an account for PUBLIC LINKS AND POSTS

Never mind the fact his platform has routinely chipped away at privacy in the past, posts suspiciously going from Friends to Friends of Friends or Public. Like you can set it and it will straight up come unset

But it's totally cool to just lock things down for accounts only if you're Facebook, and never mind people get banned all the time for bullshit, horrible things that people report are never taken down, and it's apparently increasingly impossible to even make a new account

TrackerFF 7 hours ago||
Guess it's a tactic to go after bots and scammers?
geoffschmidt 6 hours ago||
It's a tactic, the only the latest of many, to go after people who use Facebook to communicate without paying for ads (that is to say - without paying current auction prices for the attention of the recipients of their messages.)
celsoazevedo 6 hours ago||
Isn't it funny that every change to "protect users" ends up with you paying Facebook more to reach the people that followed your page?

I still remember when Facebook Pages were promoted as an alternative to feeds and newsletters. You could follow a page and be sure to receive all updates from them. Now you even have to pay to share links.

tapland 6 hours ago||
This can't be sustainable.

The few groups I'm in, local wildlife and pet bird groups, mainly consist of people asking questions that need to and are usually answered by posting links to local resources or regulations.

criddell 6 hours ago||
Since links within Meta are free, maybe they are hoping you will bring all the external resources into some Meta property?
billyp-rva 5 hours ago||
Probably. Their aim has always been to colonize the entire web.
fullshark 5 hours ago|||
That group will have it's own llama agent to read all those links and tell the members the exact answers to their question so they don't have to leave the safe zone of facebook and go off into the scary internet.
woadwarrior01 6 hours ago|||
Perhaps share QR codes with links. :)
biker142541 6 hours ago||
Yep, it will basically mean the death of Facebook. I don’t use it much, but the groups I’m in are for sharing local events (usually link to library page, map for meetup location, etc). Without links, those groups go away.
kalabrium 6 hours ago||
Well, there should be someway to fund all the ai efforts. On the other hand, I am hoping this reduces the extremely polarizing posts that seem to fill fb these days.
xlayn 5 hours ago||
It's an echo chamber, breaking it, allowing sound from the outside to come in has to be expensive because it breaks the main thing it stands for....

Remember from their own mouths the social aspect of the thing is dead... is only the manipulation, and now you can "tune" the interactions with LLMs so you hear exactly what someone pays for you to hear...

bentt 4 hours ago||
No municipal or public entity should use Facebook as a means of distributing information.
yipinwong 5 hours ago|
Why not go with Youtube route of force-feeding/shoving ADs in our face for having to share more links?

1. This will force users to keep sharing 2. get more ADs revenue 3. People get fed up and switch to $50/ month plan

similar to how Youtube did. I am fed up and ended up signing upf or youtube premimum.

More comments...