Re: Oh, maaa-aaan, they really got this one wrong...
"This is one reason why I last week or so ago called FB "faecebook", but, boy did I take a HELL of a resounding pummeling, to the tune of over 100 down thumbs...."
I thought I replied to someone on here recently who had referred to FaceBook as FaecesBoook, saying that I tend to call it FarceBook, but liked FaecesBook better so I'd adopt that. Wondering if it was you and the post you mentioned, I looked back through my own posts. I can't seem to find it, though, so perhaps it was somewhere else entirely.
"I agree. FB should pay either in cash or funny money. But, I've also locked down my privacy settings to be that I can only receive emails from friends. What gives fb the right to override my wish?"
Quite so. However, not only are my privacy setting such that only freinds can send me messages, I occasionally post a status reminding them that I don't even want *them* to do so. I really dislike FaecesBook's crappy messaging system, and would much rather they contact me by email, text message or phone (in that order of preference).
And from the article itself:
"In other words, if a Facebook user is actually willing to pay to make sure another user sees their message, then the message is probably "important" and deserves to be delivered to the recipient's Inbox, rather than the Other folder."
Such a message might get delivered to my inbox, but the sender would still have wasted their money, because it won't be seen or read. If I receive a message, when I spot the notification, I go to my inbox to clear it, and immediately navigate away; I don't actually read the message. (My next task is usually to post a status update reminding people not to send me messages on FaecesBook.)