40 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
40 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Whose house is it anyway?

by DianaHeuser
32 replies
I had a brief discussion this morning with a few friends this morning on Skype and they were unhappy with Facebook and the way Facebook runs their business.

Then I read a post about some guy wanting to develop a piece of software that he knew went against a specific site's TOUs, but his opinion was that he could do a better job than them on their site.

It started me thinking. If someone leaves a spammy or rude comment on my website (which I paid for, and pay for the hosting), then I am going to delete that comment.

It's my house. My rules.

Sure, if you don't like my house then you can leave. I am ok with that.

But for some reason people might think that they own my house because they visit so often and they have spent so much time and money decorating their little corner of my house, even though they have not paid me any rent.

Does it make it theirs?

I would love to know what you think.

Di

[Edit] Please tell me if I spelt 'whose' right because I went a total blank
#house
  • Profile picture of the author jamesrich1
    No its your house. Its interesting how people have opinions on how a billionaire runs his business. My opinion then do something better. All that type of talk is just negative energy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774428].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andrey Doichev
    You know that's a tricky topic. Of course it's your house. But just as parents are responsible for their kids, Facebook is responsible for their users.

    After being bombarded with stupid requests, ads and spam all over I expect something in return.

    When a company is such an authority in normal peoples life, they are responsible. Not by law, but by morales.


    "It's my house, get the f*ck out if you don't like it" doesnt work if 90% of your friends are in your house. When you are making such an humangous impact on peoples lifes, don't take the easy way out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774448].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
      Originally Posted by Akial View Post

      You know that's a tricky topic. Of course it's your house. But just as parents are responsible for their kids, Facebook is responsible for their users.


      "It's my house, get the f*ck out if you don't like it" doesnt work if 90% of your friends are in your house. When you are making such an humangous impact on peoples lifes, don't take the easy way out.
      Your comment above in bold is exactly my point.

      As the owner of the house if I decide to implement a new policy that all guests must take off their shoes before entering my house so that mud and dirt does not get dragged through the house, because I want to provide a better experience for my guests, then I can do it.

      If it means that I lose a percentage of my visitors then I am ok with that, because those that stay will have a better time in my house and they tend to be a better quality of visitor.

      They know that they can visit without being hit on by some leery, obnoxious individual that drools all over them and makes their visit unpleasant.

      As far as the adverts are concerned, those are the pictures on the walls of my house. They pay my rent. You don't have to look at them. It's your choice.

      Di
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774653].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cali16
        Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post


        As the owner of the house if I decide to implement a new policy that all guests must take off their shoes before entering my house so that mud and dirt does not get dragged through the house, because I want to provide a better experience for my guests, then I can do it.
        Diana, I agree; the owner gets to make the rules and guests must comply or leave. Of course, you'll always have your share of entitled guests who believe that they can just come in and do whatever they want (certainly see it happen often enough here on the WF).

        Of course, speaking of sites like FB or WF, you do always risk losing a lot of guests / members if you start making rules that a large percentage dislike. But ultimately, the rules are up to the owner in the end. I mean, who are any of us to tell Mark Zuckerberg or Allen how their sites should be run?

        It is amusing how, on many sites (particularly forums), guests tend to assume that all changes should be subject to a majority vote, or that "freedom of speech" automatically applies... :rolleyes:
        Signature
        If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6775052].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TheEye
          Facebook is not a house. It is a service that a company runs to allow people to keep in contact with each other.

          As in any community, there needs to be rules that the community are willing to abide by. Also there needs to be a mechanism to discipline those people who want to cause problems.

          Now getting back to Facebook. The company has not put in nearly anything like the effort the membership has. Therefor morally does Facebook belong to the membership or the company?

          If Facebook is making rules to benefit the membership (not allowing spam for example) then this is good. If they are making rules just because they can make rules then it is another matter entirely.

          Many a community has foundered on the rocks of highly opinionated people who thought they knew better than anybody else.

          I had better stop writing as I think the above paragraph describes me a bit too closely.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6775147].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
            TheEye,

            Originally Posted by TheEye View Post

            Now getting back to Facebook. The company has not put in nearly anything like the effort the membership has. Therefor morally does Facebook belong to the membership or the company?
            That is a really good point. I recently read a book called "Groundswell" how companies can start communities but despite all their efforts to control the direction their sites take, the 'community' overwhelms their efforts by sheer mass of numbers and they take on a life of their own.

            However, as valid as your point is, FB still has the keys, and they can lock you out at any time. It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue of ownership.

            Originally Posted by TheEye View Post

            Many a community has foundered on the rocks of highly opinionated people who thought they knew better than anybody else.

            I had better stop writing as I think the above paragraph describes me a bit too closely.
            That made me giggle

            Di
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6775217].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post



    [Edit] Please tell me if I spelt 'whose' right because I went a total blank
    I think you edited your post, because the sentence I quoted is the only instance of "whose" I see in your post. I'm going to slam my head into my desk if it's there I missed it because I read your post 3 times looking for it. The way you spelled "whose" in your question is spelled right if it's used in the right way (e.g., whose rules we disagree with).

    As for the rest of your post, you play by the house rules or leave if you don't like them. The world is full of whiners though. Too bad we couldn't just ship them all to one country and call it Whinersland. They might grow tired of it sooner or later.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774449].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andrey Doichev
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      I think you edited your post, because the sentence I quoted is the only instance of "whose" I see in your post. I'm going to slam my head into my desk if it's there I missed it because I read your post 3 times looking for it.

      As for the rest of your post, you play by the house rules or leave if you don't like them. The world is full of whiners though. Too bad we couldn't just ship them all to one country and call it Whinersland. They might grow tired of it sooner or later.

      "whose" is in the title


      Pro tip: CTRL+F
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774453].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      I think you edited your post, because the sentence I quoted is the only instance of "whose" I see in your post. I'm going to slam my head into my desk if it's there I missed it because I read your post 3 times looking for it. The way you spelled "whose" in your question is spelled right for certain uses.

      Dennis

      I was referring to the title of the post.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774459].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post

        Dennis

        I was referring to the title of the post.
        OUCH, that desk is hard!

        D-oh.

        Yes, you used it right.

        And now I'm going to retreat in shame.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774467].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Andrey Doichev
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          OUCH, that desk is hard!

          D-oh.

          Yes, you used it right.

          And now I'm going to retreat in shame.
          Hey! I pointed it out 2 whole minutes befote she did!!!

          I feel violated, I think I'm going to write a book about it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774471].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by Akial View Post

            Hey! I pointed it out 2 whole minutes befote she did!!!

            I feel violated, I think I'm going to write a book about it.
            I was just setting you up to get some thanks -- it looked like you could use a couple. :rolleyes:

            Seriously, I saw Diana had responded when I was on the front page so I clicked the link to go to the last post, and that's all I read. Let me know when you get the book finished though, as the source of your inspiration I expect to be given a review copy. :p
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774539].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andrey Doichev
    A review copy gladly, but don't expect to be credited...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774564].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
    Ahem,

    Back on topic you two
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774577].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andrey Doichev
      Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post

      Ahem,

      Back on topic you two
      I responded earlier in the thread, since we have slighlty differenct opinions, I would like to hear some feedback from you on my post, dearest OP.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774583].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author davezan
    Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post

    I would love to know what you think.
    Ask them what would they do if someone did something in their premises they do
    not like. Somewhat funny that some folks forget they can also dictate what isn't
    and is allowed in their own premises, properties, etc., although it does suck to be
    sent on their way, heh.

    As for those who just don't appreciate or like that, and not that they really have
    to appreciate or like it anyway, well...just be glad you can kick them out with an
    arguably good reason. For the most part, you'll be fine.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6774629].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wordpressmania
    The world is becoming worse! If a billionaire runs his business wrong way we surely can give our opinion. It does not mean we have to do it our own.....

    Criticism is always welcome... As it shows our faluts that we can not understad by our own...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6775275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tanshi
    There is Terms of Use for that. Every website should have it, and there state the rules of the "house".
    Signature

    The best things in life aren't things

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6776505].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      I agree 100% with you Diana!

      Your house, your rules!

      You might lose some guests, but as stated before, they're not the ones who would make the spirit or ambiance of the house a pleasant one.

      On the other hand, you may find that some guests are kind of childish and are just whining just to see if they can get their way or how far the can push the limits of the rules. They may even threaten to leave if they don't. But at the end of the day, they stay and abide.

      Think of how it was while raising your kids.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6776578].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PsycFa
    No Transparency needed unless they are playing with your names or anything related to your identity. They are a company that created something that you want; being a constant user doesn't entitled you to do whatever you want. You still need to respect their policies.

    If you are not happy; just as mentioned by OP; get the hell out. The solution is simple.

    If you think you can do a better job than them; go ahead and try to do it. Chances are that your ideas will be stuck in your grey matters.

    The policies they implemented was not just because they woke up in the morning and felt like putting it in their TOS etc..but rather it is a rationally thought over process that will benefit not only the company but also the users indirectly.

    I will let it to your imagination to figure out why I said so; *HINT put yourself in the shoes of a big company and the ramifications that it can bring to you just because you decided to follow all whims of your users.
    Signature

    The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous. The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well that the product or service fits him and sells itself.....

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6776928].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      Originally Posted by TheEye View Post

      Facebook is not a house. It is a service that a company runs to allow people to keep in contact with each other.
      Diana is using the word "house" as a metaphor; in that sense, Facebook is absolutely the type of house to which she is referring. It's not a "service" per se; rather, it's a "medium" or "venue" of sorts that allows people to stay in contact with each other.

      Originally Posted by TheEye View Post

      The company has not put in nearly anything like the effort the membership has.
      I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. The "company" is a full-time business with somewhere in the ballpark of 3,000+ FT employees. I'd say that is a "lot of effort" or work. Those who use the site for social purposes do so largely for fun or business networking, so you can't really call that "effort". Those who use it to advertise (mostly Internet marketers exploiting yet another venue) are doing that for personal gain, not for the "sake" of Facebook. They're all merely using the medium; they're not putting in "effort" to make it work or doing anything to keep it operational. The company itself is doing that.

      While the sheer volume of members has certainly played a role in the huge success it is today, it's not like millions of people got together and said, "wow, we need to all join this site and use it to make sure it becomes and remains the number 1 social networking site on the web...!"

      The best analogy I can think of at the moment is Disneyland. The millions who visit Disneyland each year are there for fun. They're not putting in "effort" to keep it going. I doubt you'll find anyone saying, "Gosh, Marge, we'd better take the kids to Disneyland again this summer to help make sure the company thrives and keeps its doors open...".

      Originally Posted by TheEye View Post

      Therefor morally does Facebook belong to the membership or the company?
      It doesn't "belong" to the members, morally or otherwise; it's merely something they currently have the privilege to use. (Btw, this is exactly the type of entitlement to which I was referring in my earlier post.)

      The same is true for the Warrior Forum - it belongs to Allen (as far as I know he's the sole owner). Those of us who are members here have the privilege of participating within it and using it for various purposes (as the rules permit). But that doesn't mean it belongs to the membership. Allen could decide to shut it down tomorrow and there's nothing any of us could do about it, as it's his right to do with it as he pleases. It's his "house", and we are all merely guests here. And, if a "house" rule is violated, our guest privileges can be quickly revoked.
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6777743].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Diana, I'm going to twist your analogy's tail just a bit...

        Talking about whose 'house' it is has pushed a few emotional buttons. How about comparing Facebook, et.al., to something like a shopping mall or convention hall?

        Same idea - your property, your rules.

        As a teen, I worked for the Golden Arches through high school. The restaurant was a few blocks from the high school, and low prices and proximity made it a crowded hangout after football games and such.

        Other than being complete slobs (how did ketchup get on the ceiling tiles?), most of the kids bought the house minimum and then hung out until closing time. If they got too boisterous (or we saw how the ketchup got on the ceiling), they were asked to leave for the week and they did.

        A few, whose behavior suggested that they were unfit to play in the gene pool, caused trouble. For that, we hired off-duty police as security. As the hooligans finally went too far and were physically ejected or arrested, they, without fail, objected that they were on public property and couldn't be forced to leave. They had a right to be there and do whatever they pleased.

        More than one public defender had to explain the difference between 'public property' and private property which allowed the public in to transact business.

        It's the same with a Facebook page. It's really Facebook's virtual property, which they allow members of the public to use for a set of purposes. Cause trouble, and be shown the door.

        Play tough, and suffer the consequences.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6777819].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adie
    It's your house but the tenants have right too.
    Signature



    Moderator's Note: You're only allowed to put your own products or sites in your signature.

    Signature edited.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6778608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Deepak Media
    Have a clear comments policy upfront. Then do accordingly.

    "The government should be made of law, rather than of men."
    Signature
    Digital Marketing Author | Speaker | Consultant

    Read my Blog: DigitalDeepak.com

    @ Bangalore, India.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6781287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adie
    Sure, if you don't like my house then you can leave. I am ok with that.
    I think it would be clearer if we say "If you don't follow my house rules then you can leave"...
    Signature



    Moderator's Note: You're only allowed to put your own products or sites in your signature.

    Signature edited.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6781319].message }}

Trending Topics