We all know the story: Facebook introduces a new feature or revises an existing feature, and there’s a cacophonous outcry from disgruntled users. Then, time passes, and people get used to the changes. Or they don’t, but they get by anyway.
But this time there’s a backlash backlash afoot, people who are frustrated by those who are, well, frustrated. “If you don’t like it, quit using Facebook!” “Quit complaining! It’s a free service!” “What a bunch of entitled whiners.”
Yet this backlash backlash reminds me of the 1970s, when you’d hear people say, “If you don’t like it here, move to Russia.” Really? That’s your answer to people who think something is broken? Move to Russia? Leave Facebook?
No, I think the backlash backlash misses something. Sure, Facebook is a free service, and people aren’t obligated to use it. But without users, Facebook doesn’t have a business. Yes, I’m aware that Facebook’s real customers aren’t users, but advertisers; it’s the advertisers, after all, who pay the bills. Still, without users Facebook doesn’t have eyeballs, and without eyeballs, Facebook doesn’t have advertisers. In other words, try not to piss off your users if you can help it, even if they’re not the ones directly paying your bills.
What happened this time?
Let’s take a look at this latest backlash: Facebook yet again changed the way the news feed feature works. It’s not a major change, but for many people, it’s a frustrating change. First and foremost, the change was made with little warning, violating one of the core principles of user experience: provide advance warning before you change things.
Second, the change is pretty nonsensical: why does Facebook get to decide which news items are most important to me? Isn’t that my job? This violates another rule of user experience: whenever possible and practical, let your users customize and control their experience.
Third, the change isn’t reversible or changeable. I can’t go back to the way it was, and I can’t modify the preference to suit my preference. In other words, the carpet was snapped out from under me, without warning, in a nonsensical manner, and without the option to put things right again.
The world’s smallest violin
Yes, this can certainly be filed under “problems that are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.” It’s a social networking site, after all. Nonetheless, the fact that users are so upset also speaks to the wild popularity of Facebook, the fact that users consider Facebook an indispensable part of their lives, that there really are no viable alternatives. Users love Facebook so much — they have so much invested in it — that even the smallest change can spark a firestorm of outrage.
Oh, and let’s not forget that one of the primary reasons people post on Facebook in the first place is to gripe about even the puniest of problems.
So is all this whining about a change to the news feed really such a bad thing? I think most companies would kill to have their audience as invested in their experience as Facebook does.
Therefore, before the backlash backlashers tell the complainers to metaphorically move to Russia, perhaps they should consider the alternative: a Facebook that makes arbitrary decisions, without warning, that make little sense, on an unpredictable basis. In other words, Facebook could become the U.S. auto industry of the 70s and 80s. And who needs another Chevy Vega after all?
