5 ms·
The more sad part is people posting links from outside Facebook less. I have always been against Facebook for the simple reason that it is a way to coral the We
by xbmcuser 11y ago
The more sad part is people posting links from outside Facebook less. I have always been against Facebook for the simple reason that it is a way to coral the Web. And it is slowly but surely happening. Yes some people will hold out for privacy or other reasons but I fear soon most will soon will move inside Facebook and no longer be accessible outside it.
- teaneedz 11y agoNews and other content will always exist beyond Facebook. The sad part is watching adtech kill more businesses as it devours its own tail.
- sergiosgc 11y agoWhat happens is that content follows the money. If we do not want content to be a puppet to advertisement, it is on us to create a different revenue stream. Advertisement is an ok answer to the financial support problem of content. However, it has a serious flaw: It caters to masses rather well, and to niches very poorly. I like to think that a direct revenue flow (from readers to writers) would create strong incentives for more niche content. Investigative journalism, independent tech reviews; stuff that is desperately needed but not consumed by the masses. Is is on us, techies. We can go down the ad-blocking arms race or we can go down the new business models race. One is destructive, the other is constructive.
- Johnny_Brahms 11y agoI am against facebook because I don't think we should entrust a company that earns money by knowing everything about it's users with a substantial share of human to human communications. I think you have to be a special kind of crazy not to consider that a problem.
- kidcoach 11y agoMore of a normal kind of crazy. Aunt peggy kind of crazy.
- TaylorGood 11y agoYes, but, it's ultimately a free tool to keep in touch with acquaintances at the very least. One that is opted-into.. Cost of Admission > Fax Era (less connected)
- Johnny_Brahms 11y agoI wouldn't say it's free. It is just less obvious what you pay.
- majewsky 11y agoYes, and people are notoriously bad at grasping hidden costs of a good or service.
- partiallypro 11y ago"I am against facebook because I don't think we should entrust a company that earns money by knowing everything about it's users" I would argue that Facebook has less personal data than Google. Facebook has the data you might want public...Google has your worst secrets.
- neogodless 11y agoI feel like there's no way they aren't working together and sharing that information. I view mattresses on Amazon, and Facebook shows me mattress ads a few minutes later. I post a link on Facebook, and everywhere I go, I see ads related to that link.
- partiallypro 11y agoProbably re-targeting pixels
- Johnny_Brahms 11y agoWhat I said of course also applies to google. I don't use google either (or at least, I go out of my way not to), and I try to minimize my use of any service where I'm the product.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jarjoura 11y agoSorry but how is sharing a link to my followers on Twitter, or my close friends on Facebook different from sharing a link on Hacker News? Original content will always want to be free to make as much money as it can. NYTimes for example will publish a URL for sharing, but also have an Apple News exclusive URI that forces you in that app sandbox. One thing I love about Facebook sharing is the commentary and comments below the content.