3 ms·

The problem shown by this is that Facebook owns the audience and uses it as it chooses, and it's getting harder and harder for other sites have have "core audie

The problem shown by this is that Facebook owns the audience and uses it as it chooses, and it's getting harder and harder for other sites have have "core audiences" of their own. This site may have been one of the weakest ones, but this same issue is playing out for newspapers and other media organizations, for instance. Facebook owned the audience, pushed those organizations to tailor their product to it, then pulled the rug out from under them. That's an enormous amount of power for one company to have.

mseebach 9y ago
I think that's a simplification. Facebook owns an audience, a huge and (until last month) easily accessible audience. Companies built on renting that particular audience are going to have a bad time, but that doesn't mean all audiences have just dried up. Facebook has admitted that the algorithm changes lowered engagement. Those eyeballs didn't just vanish into thin air, they went somewhere else, somewhere publishers only focusing on Facebook can't reach them.
- butterfi 9y ago
  I'm puzzled by the use of the word "own". FB doesn't "own" it's users, which is kind of the point. Users gonna use, and that might be FB, but also could be something else. Thinking that FB "owns" their users is similar to LittleThings thinking they were invaluable. It may not end the way you expect (e.g. MySpace, AOL, etc).
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    It would be far better if there were a many dozens of Facebooks with roughly equal numbers of users. It would be a much more intelligible market for the small fish to operate in, as the whims of any one algorithm wouldn't be so significant. Unfortunately, the vast majority of internet traffic is controlled by a handful of algorithms controlled by an even smaller number of organizations. Their inscrutable whims can make or break businesses, and that's far to much power for them to have.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mseebach 9y ago

I think that's a simplification. Facebook owns an audience, a huge and (until last month) easily accessible audience. Companies built on renting that particular audience are going to have a bad time, but that doesn't mean all audiences have just dried up. Facebook has admitted that the algorithm changes lowered engagement. Those eyeballs didn't just vanish into thin air, they went somewhere else, somewhere publishers only focusing on Facebook can't reach them.

butterfi 9y ago
I'm puzzled by the use of the word "own". FB doesn't "own" it's users, which is kind of the point. Users gonna use, and that might be FB, but also could be something else. Thinking that FB "owns" their users is similar to LittleThings thinking they were invaluable. It may not end the way you expect (e.g. MySpace, AOL, etc).
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  It would be far better if there were a many dozens of Facebooks with roughly equal numbers of users. It would be a much more intelligible market for the small fish to operate in, as the whims of any one algorithm wouldn't be so significant. Unfortunately, the vast majority of internet traffic is controlled by a handful of algorithms controlled by an even smaller number of organizations. Their inscrutable whims can make or break businesses, and that's far to much power for them to have.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]