Probably an unpopular take, but this is not a bad thing. Maybe weird on it being for link sharing, but it’s always been deeply anticompetitive to offer a free webpage. It’s bad for the market for them to set the price of hosting a webpage for a business at zero, and the network effects make it easier for them to lock businesses in

▲

margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not what this is though.

If your facebook page were your hosted website, everything's fine and dandy. Cost is still zero!

This move punishes people who do have their own website that they are paying for, and also have a facebook page that links to the main site.

	▲	mcmcmc 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, but my opinion is that they should charge everyone. This is at least a step in that direction. It’s not “punishing” anyone, it’s making just making it more clear that instead of money they want you to pay with engagement. Apparently 2 links a month is enough of a loss in engagement that the marginal cost of hosting their page outweighs the value Meta gains from having that business on the platform for “free”.