[OGinparadise]

Facebook posts are seen by only a woeful fraction of a company’s total fans or subscribers (often less than 15 percent). And conveniently, that percentage is controlled by Facebook, while the site simultaneously offers an expensive “service” that allows companies to pay to reach its own fans. This throttling quickly became a source of millions of dollars of revenue for the social network.

It’s about as plain and malignant a case of conflict of interest can get. One that only Facebook would dare to try.

It's less malignant than Google, Google also claims that they are impartial.

Google updates the algorithm or adds another 5-6 ads a page, you lose traffic; you have to advertise; they make money. They have a conflict of interests in wanting to have sites advertise and judging by Google's earnings it's working, for them

[spinchange]

There is a world of difference between Google changing their search algorithm and Facebook holding friends & followers an entity has already reached, connected with, and/or "acquired," hostage for money.

[OGinparadise]

changing their search algorithm

Changing it but what's the real reason of the algorithmic changes, not the stated one? Google controls both search and advertising.

Facebook cannot afford to let every business spam every person that has a "like," it would replace email spam in a short time. Of course Facebook would go out of business soon