Facebook started to throttle response just over a year ago, well after most people already had all of their friends in their feed, and well after most people had joined most of the pages they like.

It's no coincidence that Facebook told me I could get more views by spending money to reach the same people I had been reaching organically just a few weeks before.

The solution is to stop trying to extort money from the businesses that helped them build their business and let the users decide what they want to see.

You're acting as though Facebook has somehow blocked fans from visiting your page. They're of course free to do so.

Given that you accept it's a statistical impossibility for all content I'm subscribed to to reach my feed, what we're debating is priorities. Before this algorithm change, I fully believe it was tilted too far in terms of brands—I received way too many updates from brands and few from my friends.

What you call extortion is what every sane person in the world calls advertising. If a magazine writes a story about my business (free advertising), that obviously doesn't entitle me to free advertising in all future issues. Neither does Facebook once giving you free reach.

If your feed before was "tilted too fat in terms of brands" then you could easily have hidden them from the feed or unsubscribed.

Your analogy is wrong. Facebook did not write a free story about my business. I paid them to help me gather a group of people who were interested in my business. They never at any point said that I would have to pay to access those users. Then, after I spent a lot of money, time and effort maintaining that group, they told me that I couldn't access them without paying them again and again. That's extortion, not advertising.

As someone who has ran a business that has sold many millions of dollars of advertising you don't screw over your readers and advertisers to make an extra buck. It might work in the short term, but it's a failing business strategy.

The users are hiding you by their inaction on your posts.

If you "like" more posts from a page, you'll see more of their content. If you don't like their posts, you'll see less of it.

> Facebook started to throttle response just over a year ago, well after most people already had all of their friends in their feed, and well after most people had joined most of the pages they like.

That's a naive explanation. Is there a day when everybody is supposed to be done with liking pages and vow never to like a page again? Was there a worldwide memo on this?

New quality pages appear all the time - IOC is creating a brand new page for each Olympics, large fashion brands create pages for distinct lines they launch, media promote their journalists' and topic pages in addition to main media pages.

>Do you not see how it's literally impossible for every post I'm subscribed to reach me?

And requiring people to pay to reach fans somehow magically fixes this? Does the payment requirement somehow supercede the best algorithms in perfectly balancing post activity? And, do brands with deeper pockets somehow automatically have the most compelling content?

Do you sincerely believe that this is all about solving that problem and it just happens to have a very positive impact on Facebook's bottom line?

>But organic growth also still works.

This statement is obviously and mathematically less true than it once was. Reaching one fan organically does not mean organic "works". Degree matters here and a much smaller percentage of posts organically reach fans than at a previous time. Somewhere between zero and 100, the degree of organic efficacy becomes a non-starter for companies who previously answered Facebook's call to engage with fans for free, and are now required to pay an untenable amount to reach them.

> Does the payment requirement somehow supercede the best algorithms in perfectly balancing post activity?

Yes. That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising). No different than the tradeoff between hoping a magazine writes an article about you vs. guaranteed reach by purchasing an ad.

> This statement is obviously and mathematically less true than it once was.

I don't dispute this. It's the natural result of a growing network while people's attention stays finite.

>That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising).

You're moving the goalposts. The original problem was supposedly one of filtering noise from the consumer end. Now, you're talking about advertiser options for reaching their audiences. Yes, we know they now have a choice to pay or not. That's exactly the point.

To see the difference, consider if one advertiser with a massive budget could afford to pump out, say, 100 messages a day. Is the user now having a better experience?

So, agaim, how does forcing advertisers to pay suddenly balance the posts people see?