"This is a popular idea on HN. You're only a customer if you pay."
It's also a popular idea in the wider world of business, which predates FB by several thousand years. If you are interested in an abstract theory of wealth, that's great. But the rest of the world transacts in money, which is brought in as revenue and paid out as expenses. At the risk of oversimplifying, when you subtract the latter from the former and the number is greater than 0, then you can make a claim of profitability. Users donating data and attention might be good for your business model and help increase profits indirectly. But they are fundamentally different from customers who pay money (a means of transferring wealth) to use your product or service (a form of wealth).
Counter-example: Barnes and Noble does not consider users who visit their stores to read books and magazines without paying for them as customers. They provide B&N with incredibly valuable data (e.g. which books and magazines people want to read) and eyeballs, but they aren't customers. And neither are Facebook users.
Semantics aside, whether or not FB users are "customers," FB obviously needs them in order to be in business. Without them, it gets 0 dollars.
So the original point, "you have no right to complain because you don't pay to use it," is silly. Whether or not users have a RIGHT to complain, FB should prefer responding to their complaints over losing them as users.
As it happens, it seems that most FB users aren't phased by anything FB does in terms of privacy or heavy-handed policies. So unless those complaints get loud enough to signal that users are about to start leaving en masse, FB doesn't need to care.
In general, I agree the statement "you have no right to complain because you don't pay to use it" is silly. In the context of "a user violates the terms of usage, is repeatedly reminded of them, continues to violate them, is banned, and then complains about it", it's not. The guy was spamming people to sell a book. It's a special case, not a general rule.
I get your point. You need actual dollars coming in to be profitable. But, my point is that in some markets a lot of people not paying is worth more than a few people paying.
Whether I pay you, or make your product more valuable so other people will pay you is irrelevant. Whether you call me a customer or not is irrelevant. You should treat me well if you want to stay in business.
I don't see how the B&N example fits. Browsers aren't making the bookstore more valuable to people who actually pay. Plus they take up seats. Get rid of browsers and B&N makes more money. Get rid of Facebook users and there is no Facebook.
It's also a popular idea in the wider world of business, which predates FB by several thousand years. If you are interested in an abstract theory of wealth, that's great. But the rest of the world transacts in money, which is brought in as revenue and paid out as expenses. At the risk of oversimplifying, when you subtract the latter from the former and the number is greater than 0, then you can make a claim of profitability. Users donating data and attention might be good for your business model and help increase profits indirectly. But they are fundamentally different from customers who pay money (a means of transferring wealth) to use your product or service (a form of wealth).
Counter-example: Barnes and Noble does not consider users who visit their stores to read books and magazines without paying for them as customers. They provide B&N with incredibly valuable data (e.g. which books and magazines people want to read) and eyeballs, but they aren't customers. And neither are Facebook users.