It is nothing short of amazing that a company with 50 million customers wouldn’t provide any customer service whatsoever.
Elsewhere?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
17 Comments. Leave new
You get what you pay for.
In this case he “pays” with his time, through the advertisements he sees, and the information he provides that gets sold off one way or the other. None of these companies are providing these online services for free. Thus he could take his business, read advertising eyeballs, marketing information etc… elsewhere. Services like these with a paid subscription are not really any better. The entire business model is “take what we give you and be glad you get even that”. Seems the way things are shaping up all over. It’s the business model, not just the individual company, that is in question.
You left out a zero. It’s 500 million.
Indeed, you get what you pay for. There are plenty of online services I use that are almost obsessive in their desire for feedback. . . consequently they are services I pay for.
Ted, why do you make me sound like a republican? I hate you!
What are you 3 years old? If you don’t like their service, move on.
This is indeed outrageous! We need regulation for social networking sites pronto! Who do these guys think they are starting these huge corporations in their dorms anyway?
How do these free online businesses that have only ads make money? There must a zillion dumb people reading these ads and buying the products. I don’t think I have ever read an online ad and then go out and buy it.
395: that’s the thing, you pretty much have Facebook or nothing, everyone stopped using Myspace a long time ago.
Albert, how about a bold startup social network: Commiehug.com ?
Al,
Facebook also makes money from facebook apps.
Sounds like you lefties are victims of another corporation. If your lucky San Fran Nan and Dumbo will take them over and run them like every other government program.
As usual US 395 shows his blatant ignorance, and shows it with pride. Using the textbook conservative cliche about government running everything into the ground, he avoids facts.
For instance, even the WSJ praised Obama’s auto industry takeover.
————————
“Two Cheers for the Detroit Bailout ”
A year ago hardly anybody expected the president would be taking a Detroit victory lap this soon, if ever. And there’s more to come. The new General Motors Company will soon announce plans for an initial public offering of its stock. Chrysler will follow next year. ”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703999304575399670446387614.html
————————
Yeah. The free market worked really well for those companies. If it weren’t for Obama, those clowns would be on the unemployment line. All of them. Instead, they’re readying IPOs so they can make the execs even richer.
None of that matters to clowns like US 395. They just like to keep spewing anti-government cliches, the facts be damned. Facts cannot be allowed to interfere with ideology when you’re a conservative. US 395 is no exception.
Take a bow US 395: you’re the walking/talking epitome of a dumb conservative.
Ex,
I like to spew my anti-government clichés just as the next guy, but I:
Don’t think the American auto industry bailout was such a great idea;
Don’t take the War Street Journal’s word on this, or most any other issue;
Then again, I don’t consider myself a conservative, so I guess it’s not too much to ask to not consider me dumb.
Ex,
Had the government not taken over the automakers, they simply would have gone into bankruptcy. The companies would continue under the guidance of a receiver. Contracts would have been renegotiated and money losing operations would have been sold off to competitors and run more efficiently. Go enjoy your Chevy Volt.
And Ex, I am not so much “anti government” as I am very limited federal government. I believe the federal government should be doing only what is allowed to do under our constitution. I know, it’s a quaint idea.
Here’s your precious federal government at work for you: $22 million, federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202
US395. This is a friend. Are you still in there? How can I put this in a way that will crystallize this for you?
Forget the constitution. It emanated from Royalists (Hamilton and Madison), that is why the supreme court exists, and why congress is designed not to work. The Royalists ensured that large private actors could make use of institutional economies of scale to steer public policy to their ends. Once in a while, they slip up, and we benefit. But they soon correct the problem, and sit back and watch us eat each other alive while they bail themselves out on our backs (see Savings and Loan and the current bailout).
Well Oleg, if we forced the government to adhere to it’s limits, there would have not been an S&L crisis or bailout and there would not have been a real estate bubble, crash and bailout. Instead this is what we get condescending, ignorant asshats like Pete Stark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=player_embedded