[swapnilt]

Not necessarily. This is very useful for (atleast) business professionals. Linkedin doesn't provide emails. The only way I can send an 'Inmail' to a person is to upgrade my account. Paying $1 to send a message is a much better option.

[pbateman]

Sure. But do you really want to be contacted by "business professionals" on a site that was supposedly about staying in touch with friends?

[visarga]

That's not the problem. The problem is that they want us to pay to deliver messages to people who already "Liked" our page and thus have a pre-established interest/subscription.

[pbateman]

Actually they're both symptoms of the same problem which is the more facebook tries to monetize the sleazier it feels.

LinkedIn probably has the advantage here because it was started explicitly as a resume/business/hustling platform, whereas facebook started as a way for students to keep in touch with friends.

[onedev]

Please explain how it is sleazy?

They have a service which they are providing to you for free. They need to monetize this service and they're trying out different things.

In this case, it's not so much about monetization as it is about cutting spam, and erecting a monetary barrier which is huge in cutting down spam.

[shoopy]

People don't have defenses like spam filters for FB like they do on email, because that channel was relatively clean of unwanted messages.

It's sleazy because they have weaned people off open and free protocols into their walled garden and now they are going in for the kill. It's like how Nestle gave baby formula to African mothers so that they would stop lactating, then they cut off the supply and charged the mothers ridiculous prices so they could continue nourishing their babies.

[yuhong]

They made it cost money and limit the rates in which such paid messages can be posted.

[prostoalex]

Mm, as opposed to what? A page currently cannot message members who liked it.