6 ms·

This is great, we all should support this. The web is at a crossroad and we should promote multiple platforms, old-style blogs, decentralized navigation, class

by twsted 9y ago

This is great, we all should support this. The web is at a crossroad and we should promote multiple platforms, old-style blogs, decentralized navigation, classic journalism, etc. For too many people, Facebook is the web and this is really sad and wrong. We must find other ways to pay for information and curated content, limiting tracking and defending privacy.

blazespin 9y ago
Oh, I dunno. I thought it was an interesting experiment. I think it still has its uses. Facebook is hardly a monopoly in the sense that google or microsoft was. I know tonnes of people who don't use facebook and the people who do use it, it's usually just to connect with friends. Facebook / instagram / messenger, from what I can see, are just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like. Their businesses could crater pretty easily and the only reason it doesn't is because they keep trying different things. It's not like search and microsoft's OS dominance / network effects from their Office products. You don't need to log onto facebook in order to work, you chose to because it's fun and you can connect with friends. Google / MSFT have far deeper hooks.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  > Facebook [is] just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like That's a pretty charitable interpretation of Instant Articles.
- onion2k 9y ago
  I know tonnes of people who don't use facebook and the people who do use it, it's usually just to connect with friends. Facebook has 1.86 billion monthly active users as of Q4 2016[1]. At that time approximately 3.4 billion people used the internet. So a little over 1/2 the internet-using population, and 1/4 of everyone on Earth, has a Facebook account that they access at least once a month. If you drill down a bit about 80% of American adults use Facebook regularly[2]. You may know tonnes of people who don't use Facebook, but I think that's actually quite unusual. Outside of our HN-reading, privacy-interested, technically-competent bubble the overwhelming majority of people use Facebook, and Facebook does have an effective monopoly. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/technology/facebook-earnings/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/technology/facebook-earnings... [2] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-20...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - insickness 9y ago
    80% of the country using facebook 'regularly' is not a monopoly. And even if it were, what are they monopolizing, social media in general? Just because 80% of the country visits McDonald's regularly does not make them a monopoly.
    - H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
      There's also a scary number of people in developing countries who will report that they use Facebook, but not 'the internet'. Developing countries are the market Facebook could dominate, in the same way Microsoft dominated computers for normal people.
      - scriptkiddy 9y ago
        This is the scariest thing. Facebook tried to basically monopolize the Internet in India and other developing countries with Internet.org. There's a bunch of info out there on the subject, but this wired article is a good introduction: https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-internet-service-grows/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-intern...
    - danieldk 9y ago
      That is a bad analogy. You can start a family diner tomorrow and compete with McDonalds. There is nothing preventing that 80% to eat at your place. However, you cannot start a social network tomorrow and expect to make a reasonable income. People will not join your network, because their friends are not there. Facebook holds a significant part of the world population hostage, because they cannot 'dine' somewhere else. Contrast this with a situation where social networks are federated. You could opt to go to a competing network because their service is better, without losing contacts to your friends. I would not know if that qualifies as a monopoly legally, but there is clearly a huge difference between McDonalds and Facebook.
- lucideer 9y ago
  I think you might be surprised at Facebook's levels of control https://twitter.com/auchenberg/status/834894652775923712?s=09 https://twitter.com/auchenberg/status/834894652775923712?s=0...
barking 9y ago
It's up to the Guardian, not up to us. The press didn't arise in the first place because of people feeling it was something they should support. It filled a need.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
  In the U.S. at least a free and independent press is paramount to our system of government. It's why it's in the Constitution. So, no, it is up to all of us to support journalism and ensure it survives, not only the actual people writing.
  - barking 9y ago
    And how are we to decide which journals and journalists to give money to?
    - danielpatrick 9y ago
      Those that dig and present quality, fact-supported stories.
  - mb_72 9y ago
    I am not American, but when Trump was elected and made attacks on the media it was the 'last straw' and I took out a NYT digital sub, thinking it might help in some small way. The AUD6.40 per month is terrific value, and I often come across articles or reporting I wouldn't have otherwise. Even if I don't agree with what is written, I feel I've come away with an expanded understanding of the topic and a slightly broader world view.
return0 9y ago
> For too many people, Facebook is the web and this is really sad and wrong. Those people don't have a need for the web, and, more importantly, the web has no use for them.
- yzmtf2008 9y ago
  This kind of dismissive argument is exactly what caused this situation to happen. If you don't think the web has any use for them, someone else's "web" will. And that web will have a better user experience than yours. Before you know it, people are all using their "web" (see facebook). The real issue here is how can we enhance the experience of the web we're trying to protect. If someone else has something that's easier to use, people are going to use it.
  - return0 9y ago
    I m not being dismissive, just realistic. If you want an example of this crowd spilling into the "broader web" , look no further than youtube comments. People who have nothing interesting to add to the web had better stay inside silos. Facebook is in no way a "better web". I don't use it and I m not missing anything. I also don't agree that "ease makes it better". The early days of the web were mindbogglingly interesting because it attracted an inquisitive crowd who found ways to make it work (and invented things, if needed). Even today, interesting crowds often flock to low-UX corners of the web (case in point HN).
    - yzmtf2008 9y ago
      I don't disagree with you. I too also want the web to continue to be interesting. I also find myself clicking on "Instance Articles" and "AMP" pages a lot, because the experience sometimes is just so much better. You and I can probably live without Facebook, but for many, that's literally the only way they connect with friends online. And that's important, because the average user will become what defines the web. Just like trump is the president now, both are things I don't personally like, but that's just the people speaking. In a way, we (hn users) are also uninteresting -- and the Facebook content are kind of interesting to other people as well. People are different, and we just have different objective functions. In that sense, HN itself is also a "silo". We don't want to be living in silos.

by twsted 9y ago

blazespin 9y ago

Oh, I dunno. I thought it was an interesting experiment. I think it still has its uses. Facebook is hardly a monopoly in the sense that google or microsoft was. I know tonnes of people who don't use facebook and the people who do use it, it's usually just to connect with friends. Facebook / instagram / messenger, from what I can see, are just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like. Their businesses could crater pretty easily and the only reason it doesn't is because they keep trying different things. It's not like search and microsoft's OS dominance / network effects from their Office products. You don't need to log onto facebook in order to work, you chose to because it's fun and you can connect with friends. Google / MSFT have far deeper hooks.

madeofpalk 9y ago
> Facebook [is] just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like That's a pretty charitable interpretation of Instant Articles.
onion2k 9y ago
I know tonnes of people who don't use facebook and the people who do use it, it's usually just to connect with friends. Facebook has 1.86 billion monthly active users as of Q4 2016[1]. At that time approximately 3.4 billion people used the internet. So a little over 1/2 the internet-using population, and 1/4 of everyone on Earth, has a Facebook account that they access at least once a month. If you drill down a bit about 80% of American adults use Facebook regularly[2]. You may know tonnes of people who don't use Facebook, but I think that's actually quite unusual. Outside of our HN-reading, privacy-interested, technically-competent bubble the overwhelming majority of people use Facebook, and Facebook does have an effective monopoly. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/technology/facebook-earnings/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/technology/facebook-earnings... [2] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-20...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- insickness 9y ago
  80% of the country using facebook 'regularly' is not a monopoly. And even if it were, what are they monopolizing, social media in general? Just because 80% of the country visits McDonald's regularly does not make them a monopoly.
  - H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
    There's also a scary number of people in developing countries who will report that they use Facebook, but not 'the internet'. Developing countries are the market Facebook could dominate, in the same way Microsoft dominated computers for normal people.
    - scriptkiddy 9y ago
      This is the scariest thing. Facebook tried to basically monopolize the Internet in India and other developing countries with Internet.org. There's a bunch of info out there on the subject, but this wired article is a good introduction: https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-internet-service-grows/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-intern...
  - danieldk 9y ago
    That is a bad analogy. You can start a family diner tomorrow and compete with McDonalds. There is nothing preventing that 80% to eat at your place. However, you cannot start a social network tomorrow and expect to make a reasonable income. People will not join your network, because their friends are not there. Facebook holds a significant part of the world population hostage, because they cannot 'dine' somewhere else. Contrast this with a situation where social networks are federated. You could opt to go to a competing network because their service is better, without losing contacts to your friends. I would not know if that qualifies as a monopoly legally, but there is clearly a huge difference between McDonalds and Facebook.
lucideer 9y ago
I think you might be surprised at Facebook's levels of control https://twitter.com/auchenberg/status/834894652775923712?s=09 https://twitter.com/auchenberg/status/834894652775923712?s=0...

barking 9y ago

It's up to the Guardian, not up to us. The press didn't arise in the first place because of people feeling it was something they should support. It filled a need.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
In the U.S. at least a free and independent press is paramount to our system of government. It's why it's in the Constitution. So, no, it is up to all of us to support journalism and ensure it survives, not only the actual people writing.
- barking 9y ago
  And how are we to decide which journals and journalists to give money to?
  - danielpatrick 9y ago
    Those that dig and present quality, fact-supported stories.
- mb_72 9y ago
  I am not American, but when Trump was elected and made attacks on the media it was the 'last straw' and I took out a NYT digital sub, thinking it might help in some small way. The AUD6.40 per month is terrific value, and I often come across articles or reporting I wouldn't have otherwise. Even if I don't agree with what is written, I feel I've come away with an expanded understanding of the topic and a slightly broader world view.

return0 9y ago

> For too many people, Facebook is the web and this is really sad and wrong. Those people don't have a need for the web, and, more importantly, the web has no use for them.

yzmtf2008 9y ago
This kind of dismissive argument is exactly what caused this situation to happen. If you don't think the web has any use for them, someone else's "web" will. And that web will have a better user experience than yours. Before you know it, people are all using their "web" (see facebook). The real issue here is how can we enhance the experience of the web we're trying to protect. If someone else has something that's easier to use, people are going to use it.
- return0 9y ago
  I m not being dismissive, just realistic. If you want an example of this crowd spilling into the "broader web" , look no further than youtube comments. People who have nothing interesting to add to the web had better stay inside silos. Facebook is in no way a "better web". I don't use it and I m not missing anything. I also don't agree that "ease makes it better". The early days of the web were mindbogglingly interesting because it attracted an inquisitive crowd who found ways to make it work (and invented things, if needed). Even today, interesting crowds often flock to low-UX corners of the web (case in point HN).
  - yzmtf2008 9y ago
    I don't disagree with you. I too also want the web to continue to be interesting. I also find myself clicking on "Instance Articles" and "AMP" pages a lot, because the experience sometimes is just so much better. You and I can probably live without Facebook, but for many, that's literally the only way they connect with friends online. And that's important, because the average user will become what defines the web. Just like trump is the president now, both are things I don't personally like, but that's just the people speaking. In a way, we (hn users) are also uninteresting -- and the Facebook content are kind of interesting to other people as well. People are different, and we just have different objective functions. In that sense, HN itself is also a "silo". We don't want to be living in silos.