This struck me as an interesting take, due to your analogy: (some) viruses[1] can be inoculated against. Looking at this through a 'real world' lens, rather than a mimetic one, suggests something stronger.

Your argument is that is, Facebook has an interest in providing inoculation against viruses to their users, while the viruses themselves (Zynga) have a vested interest in removing possible inoculating effects within their ecosystem. i.e. Facebook should provide inoculation against Zynga. Now, your argument revolves around the "active/positive" end of this, where you make an appeal to Facebook to reduce the most egregious examples of this[2], as it will increase user pleasure, enhance the ecosystem and provide you with healthy users. To be fair, this approach has produced some movement from Facebook on the more obvious ones (such as the early phone ads).

This is all well and good ~ however, you're ignoring the "negative/passive" way in which this is done.

Zynga actively creates an ecosystem that ensures that the most successful viruses (i.e. <b>your social game</b>) have to conform to the most successful strategies, precisely because it is so metric / psychologically driven. If you want to compete against a dominant virus, aping the same Skinner-driven models (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/11/28/1931246/more-on-why-...) makes sense, both in market terms and ecological terms.

But you're aiming at the wrong target. Facebook isn't purely a host, it's also a virus. In fact, it benefits from a relationship where it isn't the "worst" virus, as this makes it more attractive to users (i.e. changing security / functionality / sharing of user data being the more obvious examples), while the ecological impact Zynga provides allows it to act more aggressively as a virus (i.e. your user base becomes used to virus tactics). The relationship is mutalistic, as the market well knows.

Your real target needs to be inoculating the user, so that they either recognise the strategies of the viruses and produce anti-bodies against them (the "Steam model", where your user will only react favourably to positive behaviour by a virus, because they react violently against negative behaviour, forging a symbiotic relationship[3]) <i>or</i> by producing a product that is more suited to your environment. i.e. is better at virus intrusion than Zynga, either in camouflage ("we're-nice-but-secretly-screwing-you") or by creating antibodies against other viruses ("I get such an empathetic bond with this virus, I'm not sure why, it just makes me feel good"). (The distinction is purely in the awareness / active interest of the user).

Wall of text: right gripe, wrong target. Facebook and Zynga both know their core market, and the real question is: why don't most users have such antibodies against viruses automatically?

Answer: probably due to culture & this being the first true generation of users experiencing such viruses. Of course, without being too cruel, there's some that will never produce antibodies, as we all know. http://www.bogost.com/blog/cow_clicker_1.shtml

[1] Never virii, never.
[2]Which, as we all know, <b>was/is</b> Zynga, especially in the more outspoken criticisms at certain Cons.(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml - please note, I might well be making a joke from where I'm getting my sources from),
[3] In a purely user<>host example here, there's problems with Steam just as any other DRM / software provider
[4] This example broke down in the first instance by not treating Zynga as a producer of viruses, and multiple other problems due to me typing quickly and not wanting to turn this into ecology 101. I hope that it was at least a little bit interesting / useful.