6 ms·

This reminds me of FB tacitly approving of those overly aggressive social game ads / updates for a while, until FB itself became strong enough to not need them

This reminds me of FB tacitly approving of those overly aggressive social game ads / updates for a while, until FB itself became strong enough to not need them anymore. It also reminds me of Twitter encouraging 3rd party developers, then cutting them off once they became strong enough to be alright without them. Clickbait articles surely padded FB's bottom line, but now that FB has become strong in the news feed / media source space, perhaps it feels that it can separate itself from the devil's bargain. Yes, I hate clickbait just as much as the next HN'er (and would like to not consider it in the same vein as Twitter API use), but putting aside the nature of the content, the power dynamics at play seem analogous.

erdevs 10y ago
You're absolutely right that this is a similar dynamic. At this point this is FB's MO and you have to be a fool not to anticipate it as inevitable in each ecosystem/market they develop.
johansch 10y ago
That's a weird analogy. It's not like there was a lack of content (good or bad) competing for attention before... I think a better analogy is "we have now implemented a spam filter. F U spammers."
- btym 10y ago
  Or: "we have now implemented a spam filter. F U spammers, your ad revenue isn't worth it anymore."
  - caf 10y ago
    Does it matter? Oftentimes people do things that are socially positive for purely selfish reasons.
imjk 10y ago
They did the same thing with overly aggressive affiliate advertising in the past when the first opened up their self-serve advertising platform.
mc32 10y ago
You're right about the power dynamics, on the other hand, this is good for consumers and perhaps journalists and content provider who don't engage in clickbaity content. In other words, this may drive the news industry to be more substantive and that's a good thing for consumers. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind when force is used for good --on the other hand, this strength, as you imply, can be used for conduct undesirable behavior on their part.
downandout 10y ago
You're right that Facebook is starting to exercise its strength in unhealthy ways, using companies until they decide to discard them. Most of these clickbait sites are getting traffic by paying celebrities to post the articles on their Facebook pages, cutting FB out of the revenue loop (example: [1] data: [2]). They have come to realize that they aren't going to get these companies to pay their extortionate rates for boosting page posts, so now they are moving to crush them instead. While this specific move may turn out to be a net positive for users, they are sending a clear message: pay us or we'll kill your business. Facebook's behavior is getting more and more territorial, anti-competitive, and revenue driven. They are turning into the scary behemoth that many people feared they would. [1] https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei [2] https://medium.com/@jbialer/influencers-partnerships-are-viral-steroids-bad62ae5320a#.aj326xzaz https://medium.com/@jbialer/influencers-partnerships-are-vir...
- stormbrew 10y ago
  I'm having trouble seeing how the scenario you describe is 'unhealthy'. The behaviour to drive clickbait into people's feeds you describe is essentially the same kind of thing as email spam: using a loophole to drive the cost of reach as near to zero as possible in the hopes you'll make it up on the few suckers who click. If this isn't good for the user, how is it unhealthy for them to curb it? And while I'd rather they be paying me to have my eyeballs available to them, driving up the cost of my eyeballs still benefits me even if I do not monetarily profit from it. A business doesn't have an inherent right to exist. If it exists because it annoys people in a particularly profitable way I don't know where this sympathy is coming from.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I'm having trouble seeing how the scenario you describe is 'unhealthy' I wasn't referring to killing clickbait as being unhealthy. I was referring to the practice of implementing policies that kill businesses because FB isn't getting their cut. There have been several much less cut-and-dry situations - for example, the drastically reduced organic reach of Facebook page posts for small businesses.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

erdevs 10y ago

You're absolutely right that this is a similar dynamic. At this point this is FB's MO and you have to be a fool not to anticipate it as inevitable in each ecosystem/market they develop.

johansch 10y ago

That's a weird analogy. It's not like there was a lack of content (good or bad) competing for attention before... I think a better analogy is "we have now implemented a spam filter. F U spammers."

btym 10y ago
Or: "we have now implemented a spam filter. F U spammers, your ad revenue isn't worth it anymore."
- caf 10y ago
  Does it matter? Oftentimes people do things that are socially positive for purely selfish reasons.

imjk 10y ago

They did the same thing with overly aggressive affiliate advertising in the past when the first opened up their self-serve advertising platform.

mc32 10y ago

You're right about the power dynamics, on the other hand, this is good for consumers and perhaps journalists and content provider who don't engage in clickbaity content. In other words, this may drive the news industry to be more substantive and that's a good thing for consumers. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind when force is used for good --on the other hand, this strength, as you imply, can be used for conduct undesirable behavior on their part.

downandout 10y ago

You're right that Facebook is starting to exercise its strength in unhealthy ways, using companies until they decide to discard them. Most of these clickbait sites are getting traffic by paying celebrities to post the articles on their Facebook pages, cutting FB out of the revenue loop (example: [1] data: [2]). They have come to realize that they aren't going to get these companies to pay their extortionate rates for boosting page posts, so now they are moving to crush them instead. While this specific move may turn out to be a net positive for users, they are sending a clear message: pay us or we'll kill your business. Facebook's behavior is getting more and more territorial, anti-competitive, and revenue driven. They are turning into the scary behemoth that many people feared they would. [1] https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei [2] https://medium.com/@jbialer/influencers-partnerships-are-viral-steroids-bad62ae5320a#.aj326xzaz https://medium.com/@jbialer/influencers-partnerships-are-vir...

stormbrew 10y ago
I'm having trouble seeing how the scenario you describe is 'unhealthy'. The behaviour to drive clickbait into people's feeds you describe is essentially the same kind of thing as email spam: using a loophole to drive the cost of reach as near to zero as possible in the hopes you'll make it up on the few suckers who click. If this isn't good for the user, how is it unhealthy for them to curb it? And while I'd rather they be paying me to have my eyeballs available to them, driving up the cost of my eyeballs still benefits me even if I do not monetarily profit from it. A business doesn't have an inherent right to exist. If it exists because it annoys people in a particularly profitable way I don't know where this sympathy is coming from.
- downandout 10y ago
  I'm having trouble seeing how the scenario you describe is 'unhealthy' I wasn't referring to killing clickbait as being unhealthy. I was referring to the practice of implementing policies that kill businesses because FB isn't getting their cut. There have been several much less cut-and-dry situations - for example, the drastically reduced organic reach of Facebook page posts for small businesses.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]