The problem is: suppose they weren't making a profit on the hamburger and so serving the turkey was the only way they knew how to make profits. But also suppose that it would be quite hard for customers to switch to Burger King.
Then you have characterized something of the paradoxical condition of the Facebook. Making money while accumulating ill-will.
Well, to make the analogy a little more accurate, suppose they weren't making as much profit on the hamburger as they are by serving the turkey...
Facebook and Twitter both have the problem that they have to justify the amount of investment they raised, and both are doing things that are unpopular with their community (users for Facebook, developers for Twitter) to make a bigger business than the original things that got them popular can sustain.
Thirty-five or forty years ago, McDonalds got caught out serving kangaroo in their hamburgers. Much more recently it was found flavoring the french-fry oil with a bit of tallow, to the great offense of vegetarians and I think a few Hindus.
However, it has always been much smoother at the apology business than Facebook now seems to be.
The kangaroo thing is an urban legend. Think about it, why would shipping kangaroo all the way from Australia be cheaper than locally sourcing beef? Hell, kangaroo in Australia costs more than Australian beef.
And, kangaroo is actually a very lean meat, much better for you than beef. Plus kangaroos are much better for the environment, the don't fart methane, like cows do.
The problem is: suppose they weren't making a profit on the hamburger and so serving the turkey was the only way they knew how to make profits. But also suppose that it would be quite hard for customers to switch to Burger King.
Then you have characterized something of the paradoxical condition of the Facebook. Making money while accumulating ill-will.