4 ms·

The idea that Facebook has beaten Snapchat just because they've cloned features is such a weird proposition to me. Facebook's problem is not that they don't ha

The idea that Facebook has beaten Snapchat just because they've cloned features is such a weird proposition to me. Facebook's problem is not that they don't have features, it IS the network that is stopping kids from signing up. Snapchat is a safe haven for creative, throw away content that isn't indexable, searchable, doesn't have a social graph or a permissions model.

dpeck 9y ago
I don't know how anyone could think of content on facebook as being indexable or searchable. Search is still aweful
- tumblen 9y ago
  Search for users is bad, but the data is indexed and that index is being used and sold behind the scenes all the time.
  - jat850 9y ago
    I don't know anything about it, but how is it known that this is not the case with Snapchat as well? (I realize you're not the OP in this comment chain, but still.)
    - strangecyan 9y ago
      I assume it is the case with Snapchat, I don't think you can build a service at that scale without collecting some kind of data. The difference, I think is two-fold. We know that Facebook collects, analyses and keeps data and when you use Facebook it feels like it. The other difference is that Snapchat doesn't use that data to make a people or thing recommendation engine, which is what turns people off about Facebook.
      - jat850 9y ago
        Fair answer! I don't use either myself so your perspective on it sheds a lot of light. Thank you.
- lucasmullens 9y ago
  It's more about that Facebook content is forever. Users know others can see their post years later, causing people to be less willing to use the network.
ypeterholmes 9y ago
Put differently, the truth is actually the opposite of what this article argues: the vast size of Facebook's network is the biggest threat to their existence. Many people I know are ditching facebook because its become too large a social graph- why would I post something edgy to a network that includes my parents?
- Para2016 9y ago
  I used to use FB more but now I keep it just for censoring information about myself. I think there are quite a few people who are there just for that reason.
- CodeCube 9y ago
  I fully get that this feature just isn't surfaced very well ... But I don't understand why this isn't facebook's biggest priority, to make their extremely robust permissions system easier to use. As lame as it was in general, G+'s "Circle" feature was really well thought out. I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want. I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.
  - smelendez 9y ago
    > I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want. This is basically what people use private groups for. It feels more intuitive than posting everything as a standard post with restricted permissions. > I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything. No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a year or ten years.

dpeck 9y ago

I don't know how anyone could think of content on facebook as being indexable or searchable. Search is still aweful

tumblen 9y ago
Search for users is bad, but the data is indexed and that index is being used and sold behind the scenes all the time.
- jat850 9y ago
  I don't know anything about it, but how is it known that this is not the case with Snapchat as well? (I realize you're not the OP in this comment chain, but still.)
  - strangecyan 9y ago
    I assume it is the case with Snapchat, I don't think you can build a service at that scale without collecting some kind of data. The difference, I think is two-fold. We know that Facebook collects, analyses and keeps data and when you use Facebook it feels like it. The other difference is that Snapchat doesn't use that data to make a people or thing recommendation engine, which is what turns people off about Facebook.
    - jat850 9y ago
      Fair answer! I don't use either myself so your perspective on it sheds a lot of light. Thank you.
lucasmullens 9y ago
It's more about that Facebook content is forever. Users know others can see their post years later, causing people to be less willing to use the network.

ypeterholmes 9y ago

Put differently, the truth is actually the opposite of what this article argues: the vast size of Facebook's network is the biggest threat to their existence. Many people I know are ditching facebook because its become too large a social graph- why would I post something edgy to a network that includes my parents?

Para2016 9y ago
I used to use FB more but now I keep it just for censoring information about myself. I think there are quite a few people who are there just for that reason.
CodeCube 9y ago
I fully get that this feature just isn't surfaced very well ... But I don't understand why this isn't facebook's biggest priority, to make their extremely robust permissions system easier to use. As lame as it was in general, G+'s "Circle" feature was really well thought out. I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want. I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.
- smelendez 9y ago
  > I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want. This is basically what people use private groups for. It feels more intuitive than posting everything as a standard post with restricted permissions. > I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything. No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a year or ten years.