Facebook: Members can't sell their own ads...?

I love Facebook. It's a rich community of members. AND, it's a rich case study in what happens when a company gets really, REALLY, successful and rich in REALLY short time.

Early symptoms of hubris are emerging with Facebook. Hubris, and the need to control all that is theirs now to give. That's as they see it, it seems. The original business model was all about freedom, openness and sharing, when there was nothing, nothing left to lose. And now that they're talking about real money...(a billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talking real money...the late Sen. Everett Dirksen, possibly) now it's theirs and their alone to give.

Take for instance the latest development. Members can't advertise their own ads on their own profiles. Technically, they can. And they do, with a company called weblo. But Facebook thinks members' own ads on their own profiles may be... unseemly.

Facebook does not allow users to sell ads on their profile pages. Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, told me on Nov. 6 that is because Facebook does not want people’s profile pages to become cluttered.

“We don’t want a free-for-all,” he said.

I'm wondering if Mr. Kelly has recently visited Facebook. It's the free-for-all nature of Facebook that makes it so charming, enticing, captivating, and drives its growth.

Oh but wait. This would be a free-for-all where...Facebook loses control. It would be a true free-for-all not just the patina of one. Be careful what you build, you may just get it.

The irony, one might say perspective skewed by self-serving monied interests, is rich here. Unlike Facebook's Beacon program...which was a free-for-all when discovered, with Facebook following its members, announcing their activities, making it virtually impossible to opt-out from Facebook's monitoring their every activity...and cluttering a lot of people's day...you think a member advertising their own ads only on their own profile would be a 'free-for-all'.

And it's your esthetics that keep you from allowing members to indulge in the same activities as you deem right for you. Yes. We are Facebook...we know what's best for our members...Nothing like a parental attitude manifesting in a corporate dictate... Free-for-all's are bad if it's the members' free-for-all and it's good if the free-for-all is free...for...all except the members with the ad revenue going directly to Facebook, not the member.

Facebook, you've not created paradise, but you are about to pave over your own business model.