4 ms·

This Could Be the End of Facebook

24 points by imartin2k 9y ago

twobyfour 9y ago
Not sure I agree with the hypothesis about the impact on Facebook, but it's an interesting theory to consider.
- greedy_buffer 9y ago
  One could even go as far as calling the title clickbait.
everdev 9y ago
Deleted my FB account years ago. 0 regrets.
- AndrewOMartin 9y ago
  For people so resistant to social media, those who aren't on Facebook appear remarkably content to brag about it in the comments sections of other sites. This may of course just be confirmation bias (it often is) as I'd never notice those who aren't on Fb and don't mention it.
  - imartin2k 9y ago
    I think that is the logical consequence. If one stops using Facebook, one somewhat is an outsider in a world which is highly rel on Facebook. Bragging a) offers a certain type of status (let's be honest about this), but b) also is an attempt to make others to join, which offers the outlook of a world which is not so reliant on Facebook anymore.
    - Yetanfou 9y ago
      I don't think the world is 'highly rel[iant] on Facebook', not by a long stretch. Facebook has made its way into pockets of the world and established a firm hold there which makes it look like this to those within those pockets. For those outside - mostly consisting of people who never joined the 'social media' craze - the thought of something like Facebook being essential in some way is alien, their continued existence without any sense of marginalisation being proof of the validity of their stance. For recent Facebook (et al) survivors this is probably harder, they'll need to convince themselves they did the right thing in leaving the bubble. If you subject the concept of Facebook to some critical thought it does become clear that those outside of the bubble have the most logical attitude: Facebook has the potential to turn its users' lives into real live "Truman shows" [1] with each user playing the role of "Truman" in their own right while their contacts - who also get to be "Truman" in turn - play the role of the supporting actors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show
hnlurker 9y ago
Tamper evident, not tamper proof. Meh.
mtgx 9y ago
The problem with Facebook is that it has taken the major role in deciding what people get to see. It has taken the responsibility of "curating" everyone's experiences on Facebook. So now the company can't really turn around and say "hey, we aren't responsible for what people post or read on our platform." I actually don't think private companies should be having a role in showing people the "truth" on user-generated content platforms. What I'm saying is that they decided that this was their role a long time ago, but now that they got in trouble for not doing a great job at that, they pretend that was never their role in the first place.
mg74 9y ago
I did listen to the podcast. Galloway's view is IMO pretty much the old media perspective: If only the media had banded together, Google and FB would have been forced to pay for the content and old media would have been saved. He completely ignores the perspective that the supply of free content has grown exponentially over the last decade, while my time to consume media has pretty much stayed constant. I might pay (and do) for SOME old media content, but the days of them being the gatekeepers are long over.
dominotw 9y ago
What about the companies they own. Watsapp, insta ect ? Is the stock still worth the price?
allcentury 9y ago
I'm not sure I see the causal relationship pointed out by the article. J&J's products, on paper, killed 3 people and no one in their right mind was going to risk being killed just because they had a headache. They recognized immediately that by not solving this issue for the consumer they risked tremendous losses. James Burke took a huge step and not only squashed the potential risk of his products but actually made them even safer. What lives did FB put at risk here? If there's even an analogy to J&J it's that a few claims on the bottles label weren't true for _some_ of the consumer base.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  I suppose it could be argued that losing democracy often results in significant loss of life and a reduction in everyone's quality of life.
  - chronid 9y ago
    Blaming Facebook for "loss of democracy" would be ridiculous. Democracy is being lost when you start having low turnouts. When citizens lose interest in the matter of the state. When certain positions essentially always stay in the same family(ies). When there is zero confidence in the ability of the politicians to run the country. When it does not matter who you would vote, because the end result (for you) will always be the same. Loss of democracy is a process, not an event.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      What about when a mass media service that is pushing propaganda? Does that not subvert democracy?
      - chronid 9y ago
        Isn't pushing propaganda what mass media do all the time? So are we looking at the pot (the "old school" mass media) calling the kettle (facebook&co) black? Paladins of freedom (if you ignore the obvious conflict of interest) and democracy (if their ideas are your ideas or somewhat similar), indeed. At least Facebook, differently from "old school" mass media (granting for the sake of the argument that facebook is a mass media "entity") had no actual intent to push propaganda. It sold ads. To the wrong people? Maybe (granting for the sake of the argument that its selling ads to those people moved votes). Democracy has been decaying from the start. It's decaying even faster now, but people putting the blame on facebook and the crazy guy that got elected president in the last round make me laugh. Sorry. :)
kapauldo 9y ago
The only way this ends Facebook if a class action lawsuit where all citizens are the class is filed, and the damages are loss of democratic election. I don't see it happening, facebook will be fine.
gjvc 9y ago
I don't go a bundle on articles like this but really, there are some excellent points made here. This quote alone is worth the read. “The damage done to organizations in crises isn’t the crisis itself — it’s how you handle the crisis,”. While it sounds like the distillation of countless racks of airport bookshop self-help and management books, do read it closely -- it's saying the damage occurs as a result of actions taken by the organization itself. In my experience, this is forgotten all-too-often. “There’s only one thing you have to remember: you have to overcorrect." Decisive execution silents many critics and impresses the rest. Regular readers of HN will recall the times when big-name sites on the web have had multi-hour outages, and have journaled their progress in real-time for people to view, and this transparency has been applauded.
whipoodle 9y ago
Mmm, rather I think we should strap in for lots more of the same. This is the world we built. FB is worth half a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of investor commitment to keeping this show on the road. Who is going to shut it down? It is perhaps unsavory, but consider that maybe Tylenol would have been just fine without the overreaction.

24 points by imartin2k 9y ago

twobyfour 9y ago

Not sure I agree with the hypothesis about the impact on Facebook, but it's an interesting theory to consider.

greedy_buffer 9y ago
One could even go as far as calling the title clickbait.

everdev 9y ago

Deleted my FB account years ago. 0 regrets.

AndrewOMartin 9y ago
For people so resistant to social media, those who aren't on Facebook appear remarkably content to brag about it in the comments sections of other sites. This may of course just be confirmation bias (it often is) as I'd never notice those who aren't on Fb and don't mention it.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  I think that is the logical consequence. If one stops using Facebook, one somewhat is an outsider in a world which is highly rel on Facebook. Bragging a) offers a certain type of status (let's be honest about this), but b) also is an attempt to make others to join, which offers the outlook of a world which is not so reliant on Facebook anymore.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    I don't think the world is 'highly rel[iant] on Facebook', not by a long stretch. Facebook has made its way into pockets of the world and established a firm hold there which makes it look like this to those within those pockets. For those outside - mostly consisting of people who never joined the 'social media' craze - the thought of something like Facebook being essential in some way is alien, their continued existence without any sense of marginalisation being proof of the validity of their stance. For recent Facebook (et al) survivors this is probably harder, they'll need to convince themselves they did the right thing in leaving the bubble. If you subject the concept of Facebook to some critical thought it does become clear that those outside of the bubble have the most logical attitude: Facebook has the potential to turn its users' lives into real live "Truman shows" [1] with each user playing the role of "Truman" in their own right while their contacts - who also get to be "Truman" in turn - play the role of the supporting actors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show

hnlurker 9y ago

Tamper evident, not tamper proof. Meh.

mtgx 9y ago

The problem with Facebook is that it has taken the major role in deciding what people get to see. It has taken the responsibility of "curating" everyone's experiences on Facebook. So now the company can't really turn around and say "hey, we aren't responsible for what people post or read on our platform." I actually don't think private companies should be having a role in showing people the "truth" on user-generated content platforms. What I'm saying is that they decided that this was their role a long time ago, but now that they got in trouble for not doing a great job at that, they pretend that was never their role in the first place.

mg74 9y ago

I did listen to the podcast. Galloway's view is IMO pretty much the old media perspective: If only the media had banded together, Google and FB would have been forced to pay for the content and old media would have been saved. He completely ignores the perspective that the supply of free content has grown exponentially over the last decade, while my time to consume media has pretty much stayed constant. I might pay (and do) for SOME old media content, but the days of them being the gatekeepers are long over.

dominotw 9y ago

What about the companies they own. Watsapp, insta ect ? Is the stock still worth the price?

allcentury 9y ago

I'm not sure I see the causal relationship pointed out by the article. J&J's products, on paper, killed 3 people and no one in their right mind was going to risk being killed just because they had a headache. They recognized immediately that by not solving this issue for the consumer they risked tremendous losses. James Burke took a huge step and not only squashed the potential risk of his products but actually made them even safer. What lives did FB put at risk here? If there's even an analogy to J&J it's that a few claims on the bottles label weren't true for _some_ of the consumer base.

jimnotgym 9y ago
I suppose it could be argued that losing democracy often results in significant loss of life and a reduction in everyone's quality of life.
- chronid 9y ago
  Blaming Facebook for "loss of democracy" would be ridiculous. Democracy is being lost when you start having low turnouts. When citizens lose interest in the matter of the state. When certain positions essentially always stay in the same family(ies). When there is zero confidence in the ability of the politicians to run the country. When it does not matter who you would vote, because the end result (for you) will always be the same. Loss of democracy is a process, not an event.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    What about when a mass media service that is pushing propaganda? Does that not subvert democracy?
    - chronid 9y ago
      Isn't pushing propaganda what mass media do all the time? So are we looking at the pot (the "old school" mass media) calling the kettle (facebook&co) black? Paladins of freedom (if you ignore the obvious conflict of interest) and democracy (if their ideas are your ideas or somewhat similar), indeed. At least Facebook, differently from "old school" mass media (granting for the sake of the argument that facebook is a mass media "entity") had no actual intent to push propaganda. It sold ads. To the wrong people? Maybe (granting for the sake of the argument that its selling ads to those people moved votes). Democracy has been decaying from the start. It's decaying even faster now, but people putting the blame on facebook and the crazy guy that got elected president in the last round make me laugh. Sorry. :)

kapauldo 9y ago

The only way this ends Facebook if a class action lawsuit where all citizens are the class is filed, and the damages are loss of democratic election. I don't see it happening, facebook will be fine.

gjvc 9y ago

I don't go a bundle on articles like this but really, there are some excellent points made here. This quote alone is worth the read. “The damage done to organizations in crises isn’t the crisis itself — it’s how you handle the crisis,”. While it sounds like the distillation of countless racks of airport bookshop self-help and management books, do read it closely -- it's saying the damage occurs as a result of actions taken by the organization itself. In my experience, this is forgotten all-too-often. “There’s only one thing you have to remember: you have to overcorrect." Decisive execution silents many critics and impresses the rest. Regular readers of HN will recall the times when big-name sites on the web have had multi-hour outages, and have journaled their progress in real-time for people to view, and this transparency has been applauded.

whipoodle 9y ago

Mmm, rather I think we should strap in for lots more of the same. This is the world we built. FB is worth half a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of investor commitment to keeping this show on the road. Who is going to shut it down? It is perhaps unsavory, but consider that maybe Tylenol would have been just fine without the overreaction.