5 ms·

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 s

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.
  - stormbrew 10y ago
    Right, but why is that unhealthy? If the cost of advertising on facebook is zero or near it, users suffer very badly (as on any platform). Someone has to force the cost up to make the platform livable, and the only party that realistically can in this transaction is facebook. Like, I get why other things named in this thread are unhealthy. Particularly twitter pulling the rug out from app developers (which facebook also did, and I think was also relatively unambiguously unhealthy). I am not saying that all control of a platform is necessarily healthy, but you seem to be saying that it is unhealthy because it made an action that most see as undesirable unprofitable (thus causing businesses to fail). Thus, you seem to believe that these businesses have some kind of inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business allowing them to. I'm asking you to explain how that's in the public good.
    - downandout 10y ago
      It's unhealthy when they allow it for a long time, benefit from it, and then pull the rug out from under them once they believe it is in their financial best interest to do so. It's exactly the same as your Twitter and Facebook developer examples. Developers were monetizing the Twitter platform until Twitter pulled the rug out. Facebook has similarly neutered their API to the point where it is nearly useless, and many businesses were crushed in the wake of the changes. You seem to be saying that it's only unhealthy when developers are affected, but that isn't the case. Developers have no "inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business allowing them to" either, yet you see that as unhealthy. Publishers and developers are just users of the system, getting crushed when Facebook doesn't believe it's getting a big enough cut. I would also argue that Facebook actively blocking the sharing of external content that its users choose to share with each other simply because they aren't getting their cut is different than the affected businesses believing they have an "inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business". Businesses that don't directly do anything on Facebook will be affected by this, because if their visitors wish to share their content, they will likely attempt to share it through Facebook.
      - NoodleIncident 10y ago
Kluny 10y ago
> 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. I mean... facebook needs to make money too. These clickbait companies are making money of of facebook's audience, facebook's hardware and software... it's only fair that facebook gets a cut, isn't it?
- rhizome 10y ago
  How many years has it taken them to get to this point? It's not about money.
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
> 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. I do not fear whatever Facebook turns into because I can decide to stop using it. If they want to continue doing evil things, I can stop logging in, no? Why would someone fear that FB is turning into something?
- rshaban 10y ago
  You can stop logging in, sure, but they still own all your data
- kbenson 10y ago
  Well, yes, but that's sort of like saying "I don't care what they teach in public schools, I can choose a private school for myself or my family." In the end, since the majority of people are consuming that thing you are rejecting, there's a high likelihood of it affecting you in some manner anyway. That is, FB is a behemoth, is a major source of current events for a large swath of people, and their decisions unfortunately may have wider consequences than we or they necessarily predict.
  - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
    I must be missing out on FB because I do not use it for searching products, concerts, movies, news, restaurants, etc. It only shows me updates from family, specific business I have "liked", etc. But perhaps your point is, many people spend hours on it instead of news sites, thus see the content shared through that via walls instead of the main pages of news websites?
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > But perhaps your point is, many people spend hours on it instead of news sites, thus see the content shared through that via walls instead of the main pages of news websites? Yes. I don't use Facebook, but my significant other does, and of the few news items here that I think are relevant to her, she usually sees them shared through someone's wall post 12-48 hours later. For some people it's a giant peer-to-peer new sharing site, and it's the primary source of news they have. That's extremely powerful position for Facebook, which is also why they got into so much trouble when it came out a while back that they were tweaking people's feeds slightly based on political views.

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.
- stormbrew 10y ago
  Right, but why is that unhealthy? If the cost of advertising on facebook is zero or near it, users suffer very badly (as on any platform). Someone has to force the cost up to make the platform livable, and the only party that realistically can in this transaction is facebook. Like, I get why other things named in this thread are unhealthy. Particularly twitter pulling the rug out from app developers (which facebook also did, and I think was also relatively unambiguously unhealthy). I am not saying that all control of a platform is necessarily healthy, but you seem to be saying that it is unhealthy because it made an action that most see as undesirable unprofitable (thus causing businesses to fail). Thus, you seem to believe that these businesses have some kind of inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business allowing them to. I'm asking you to explain how that's in the public good.
  - downandout 10y ago
    It's unhealthy when they allow it for a long time, benefit from it, and then pull the rug out from under them once they believe it is in their financial best interest to do so. It's exactly the same as your Twitter and Facebook developer examples. Developers were monetizing the Twitter platform until Twitter pulled the rug out. Facebook has similarly neutered their API to the point where it is nearly useless, and many businesses were crushed in the wake of the changes. You seem to be saying that it's only unhealthy when developers are affected, but that isn't the case. Developers have no "inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business allowing them to" either, yet you see that as unhealthy. Publishers and developers are just users of the system, getting crushed when Facebook doesn't believe it's getting a big enough cut. I would also argue that Facebook actively blocking the sharing of external content that its users choose to share with each other simply because they aren't getting their cut is different than the affected businesses believing they have an "inherent right to succeed on the good graces of another business". Businesses that don't directly do anything on Facebook will be affected by this, because if their visitors wish to share their content, they will likely attempt to share it through Facebook.
    - NoodleIncident 10y ago

Kluny 10y ago

> 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. I mean... facebook needs to make money too. These clickbait companies are making money of of facebook's audience, facebook's hardware and software... it's only fair that facebook gets a cut, isn't it?

rhizome 10y ago
How many years has it taken them to get to this point? It's not about money.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago

> 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. I do not fear whatever Facebook turns into because I can decide to stop using it. If they want to continue doing evil things, I can stop logging in, no? Why would someone fear that FB is turning into something?

rshaban 10y ago
You can stop logging in, sure, but they still own all your data
kbenson 10y ago
Well, yes, but that's sort of like saying "I don't care what they teach in public schools, I can choose a private school for myself or my family." In the end, since the majority of people are consuming that thing you are rejecting, there's a high likelihood of it affecting you in some manner anyway. That is, FB is a behemoth, is a major source of current events for a large swath of people, and their decisions unfortunately may have wider consequences than we or they necessarily predict.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  I must be missing out on FB because I do not use it for searching products, concerts, movies, news, restaurants, etc. It only shows me updates from family, specific business I have "liked", etc. But perhaps your point is, many people spend hours on it instead of news sites, thus see the content shared through that via walls instead of the main pages of news websites?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > But perhaps your point is, many people spend hours on it instead of news sites, thus see the content shared through that via walls instead of the main pages of news websites? Yes. I don't use Facebook, but my significant other does, and of the few news items here that I think are relevant to her, she usually sees them shared through someone's wall post 12-48 hours later. For some people it's a giant peer-to-peer new sharing site, and it's the primary source of news they have. That's extremely powerful position for Facebook, which is also why they got into so much trouble when it came out a while back that they were tweaking people's feeds slightly based on political views.