[lwhi]

I think the rise of 'free' services and websites presents a set of quite dis-empowering problems for users.

Previously, after buying something, if we were unhappy in anyway we'd always be able to 'vote with our cash'. It was recognised that we deserved to be compensated if our experience of a company fell short.

Modern (free-to-access) sites obviously aren't free, we pay for usage by giving attention (via eyeballs or behaviour). However, this exchange of value isn't as tangible as it once was when we had to pay money for a service.

Maybe moving to a paid-for model might actually be better for consumers / participants - because we'd be able to make more explicit demands?

At the moment we can stop using the service - but the assessment a user makes is probably quite often weighed up against this illusion of 'zero-cost'.

[kjuhgfghjk]

Like the quality of service and customer response you get with paid for cellphone and cable TV services?

[lwhi]

Well, maybe I'm in the minority - but when I'm not happy with something I pay for, I make damn sure it gets changed. It takes a bit of effort - and usually involves a bit of time, but it works.

What can we do with a company like Facebook or Google when we're no longer happy?

[go37pi]

We can stop using it, and create or support alternatives.

We're used to the cost of a service being its monetary price, or more recently, the demands it makes on our attention. Perhaps a new type of model is being developed in which the price of a service we desire is not in the form of money or attention, but our data. And in this case the way a company uses our data is a real "cost", rather than a mutually beneficial outcome.

I think that threatening to withdraw and withdrawing payment, whether monetary or otherwise, will prove to be a significant balance on the actions of companies. If the changes are significantly detrimental, consumers will take the actions they consider necessary to address those concerns.

[lwhi]

Thinking about potential situations which might involve FB users showing discontent, brings striking factory workers to mind.

I suppose when we use FB - we are actually participating in a kind of factory, so perhaps the analogy is apt.

[lwhi]

True, we can stop using it.

However, I think this idea presents a false dichotomy. We need other options which don't involve either remaining compliant or quitting.

While we're told we have freedom, because we can exit - we end up investing so much in a service, that quitting becomes very 'expensive' (in terms of human cost). Quitting becomes a unrealistic option for most.

I think the same can be said for Apple's POV re. the iPhone and competition. They like to say that users are free - and that if they're not happy with the way they do business (or change their terms) then they can go elsewhere.

In reality, users have spent a large amount money on their hardware - and are usually locked into 18-24 month phone contracts. The arguments are disingenuous.