21 ms·

Is the social media bubble about to burst?

75 points by john58 9y ago

tneely 9y ago
Facebook, maybe. Social media? No way. I feel the connections it brings us, or helps us maintain, are too important to lose. If Facebook can't do it right, someone else will step up to fill the gap. Hopefully with a less malicious business model.
- lev99 9y ago
  > Hopefully with a less malicious business model. The housing bubble bursts when a malicious business model failed and was declared illegal. We still have housing. It seems reasonable that valuation of social media companies can be greatly reduced, and their business models be restricted by regulation, without all social media disappearing. I suspect many politicians are eager to control aspects of social media, specifically political speech, for similar reasons they are happy to control district boundaries: it gives them influence over their constituents. I fully expect to see legislation purposed that would decrease many platform's revenue while increasing their operating costs. We are already seeing operating costs increase as Facebook hires a new team of lobbyist.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  > I feel the connections it brings us, or helps us maintain, are too important to lose. I felt the same way about IRC rooms. They are gone now.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    Are they? For half the year I spend hours every Sunday on an irc channel full of football fans. That connection is important to me, since the level of discussion there is higher, (and more civilized, due to active moderation) than most forums.
kartan 9y ago
People miss the main point. The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook. Privacy concerns are an important motivator. But we have already things a lot more tangible than that. I like the concept of social media, of sharing moments with people I know but I don't have day to day contact, of communicating with my family that is in another country. But the way it's implemented is scary, and it has lasting world-wide consequences. I would not mind paying X$ monthly to have quality social media. But this can't happen while it competes with free social media where your data is the product. Regulate the market, force it to move in a more healthy direction and let new companies grow and drive inside the new game rules, and make the old ones to adapt.
- herbst 9y ago
  I don't get the thought that additional unauthorised propaganda somehow changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way. In other words who says the authorised propaganda is better or more true. The are doing the exact same and the deeper the pockets the deeper their social media influence is. Why is it Suddenly ok that propaganda has to be authorised to be 'valid' It's all just additional information. Isn't it the peoples job to build their own image? Do we really want to regulate what perception people get of 'things'? I hope someone can follow what I am trying to say...
  - rjsw 9y ago
    The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.
    - qeternity 9y ago
      What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?
      - lmkg 9y ago
geff82 9y ago
In other news: „Is this internet-thing going to last?“ lol
kosei 9y ago
If ever there was an example of Betteridge's law of headlines... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
herbst 9y ago
I think the idea that we need to replace Facebook is wrong to begin with. I want to believe that more and more people value privacy and social networks will more and more be like private chat rooms again. Slack/Discord/Wechat/Telegram and soon Hangout again are the best examples.
- 411mrc 9y ago
  The social graph of the world is too important to put in the hands of a company trying to monetize it. It needs to be decentralized and open source. Diaspora looks interesting in that regard, but I think the solution is a least a few iterations away from that.
  - herbst 9y ago
    I still believe there is simply no need for that ultimate social graph. I believe it will die down in order to make place for more decentralised approaches for connections are not a visible public reference. Any social graph could be the religion registers back i the nazi days all over again. Privacy is getting more important even for the non it individuals.
    - lev99 9y ago
      Maybe a 100% complete social graph is not required, but I suspect social graphs to be more and more important. Facebook is not a 100% social graph anyway. I keep business relations to LinkedIn and my Chinese contacts do not use Facebook. People in highly connected points of social graphs provide a valuable service to society, and are using technology to monetize on their contribution. The people are a mix between a tribe leader and a thought leader. They bring people together and help spread ideas. Even in a very monetized network, Youtube, experts believe Influencers receive less compensation than they would with similar audiences in the old media [1]. This undervalue suggests a market imbalance that should correct it self with time. As more money comes into the field the competition will increase and the quality of the product will increase. That is why I think social graphs will become more and more important. [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdiepie-doesnt-make-anywhere-close-to-what-he-should-be-making/2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdi...
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
There is really just one solution and it’s gaining traction in D.C.: Facebook must be broken up. The second component, an American GDPR, is a harder sell, but we can do that state by state.
- lev99 9y ago
  What is a GDPR?
  - grzm 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
megous 9y ago
Social media is very scary if you don't look only at the relatively educated western populations. Easy way to spread and amplify plausible sounding lies with little correction or oversight in third world countries, where people don't understand the context of what social media is or how it is different from normal media, how it all works, how easy is to photoshop stuff for pretty much anyone... It's troublesome. Even some officials in UN are fearful of Facebook inspired genocide these days. Rwanda was radio telling people to go killing the Other. Now it is Facebook in some countries. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, India,... The difference compared to radio is that it should be possible to prevent incitement to kill/hurt people for Facebook operators even if it would mean shutting it down in particular country, so there's culpability of the Facebook co. Facebook is not just a dumb pipe, they clearly police the content. One day we may wake up to a reality of tens of thousands massacred muslims (or whoever) after people take it to the streets after some particularly successful hate week going viral on Facebook. As of today the riots are so far localised.
deeg 9y ago
It wasn't that long ago that we were lauding the Twitter Revolutions. I don't think social media is going anywhere but it will certainly change.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sprash 9y ago
I already made 5k shorting facebook. Shares could easily fall below $30. Easy money.
cannedslime 9y ago
It bursted long ago. It don't know exactly when it happened, but people went from actually using sites like facebook (Posting about their lives, kids, dinners etc) to just using facebook etc. as a IM platform and meme feed, like we have had alternatives for since forever.
bazzlexposition 9y ago
Is Facebook some magical force that removes all critical thought from a persons brain? If you want to blame Facebook for being fooled into thinking NewOrgScienceNews.cn is a reputable paper, nothing is going to help you. If you even believe that NYT or WaPo or any other news organization is infallible, or shouldn't be approached with a critical eye, you are an idiot. And if you believe a company that makes billions of dollars providing a free service in exchange for user information has your privacy concerns in mind, you are really deluded.

75 points by john58 9y ago

Facebook, maybe. Social media? No way. I feel the connections it brings us, or helps us maintain, are too important to lose. If Facebook can't do it right, someone else will step up to fill the gap. Hopefully with a less malicious business model.

lev99 9y ago
> Hopefully with a less malicious business model. The housing bubble bursts when a malicious business model failed and was declared illegal. We still have housing. It seems reasonable that valuation of social media companies can be greatly reduced, and their business models be restricted by regulation, without all social media disappearing. I suspect many politicians are eager to control aspects of social media, specifically political speech, for similar reasons they are happy to control district boundaries: it gives them influence over their constituents. I fully expect to see legislation purposed that would decrease many platform's revenue while increasing their operating costs. We are already seeing operating costs increase as Facebook hires a new team of lobbyist.
pmlnr 9y ago
> I feel the connections it brings us, or helps us maintain, are too important to lose. I felt the same way about IRC rooms. They are gone now.
- jpindar 9y ago
  Are they? For half the year I spend hours every Sunday on an irc channel full of football fans. That connection is important to me, since the level of discussion there is higher, (and more civilized, due to active moderation) than most forums.

kartan 9y ago

People miss the main point. The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook. Privacy concerns are an important motivator. But we have already things a lot more tangible than that. I like the concept of social media, of sharing moments with people I know but I don't have day to day contact, of communicating with my family that is in another country. But the way it's implemented is scary, and it has lasting world-wide consequences. I would not mind paying X$ monthly to have quality social media. But this can't happen while it competes with free social media where your data is the product. Regulate the market, force it to move in a more healthy direction and let new companies grow and drive inside the new game rules, and make the old ones to adapt.

herbst 9y ago
I don't get the thought that additional unauthorised propaganda somehow changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way. In other words who says the authorised propaganda is better or more true. The are doing the exact same and the deeper the pockets the deeper their social media influence is. Why is it Suddenly ok that propaganda has to be authorised to be 'valid' It's all just additional information. Isn't it the peoples job to build their own image? Do we really want to regulate what perception people get of 'things'? I hope someone can follow what I am trying to say...
- rjsw 9y ago
  The issue for me is that it was personalized propaganda and that there is no record of who was shown what message.
  - qeternity 9y ago
    What constitutes propaganda? And why does it matter that its personalized?
    - lmkg 9y ago

geff82 9y ago

In other news: „Is this internet-thing going to last?“ lol

kosei 9y ago

If ever there was an example of Betteridge's law of headlines... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

herbst 9y ago

I think the idea that we need to replace Facebook is wrong to begin with. I want to believe that more and more people value privacy and social networks will more and more be like private chat rooms again. Slack/Discord/Wechat/Telegram and soon Hangout again are the best examples.

411mrc 9y ago
The social graph of the world is too important to put in the hands of a company trying to monetize it. It needs to be decentralized and open source. Diaspora looks interesting in that regard, but I think the solution is a least a few iterations away from that.
- herbst 9y ago
  I still believe there is simply no need for that ultimate social graph. I believe it will die down in order to make place for more decentralised approaches for connections are not a visible public reference. Any social graph could be the religion registers back i the nazi days all over again. Privacy is getting more important even for the non it individuals.
  - lev99 9y ago
    Maybe a 100% complete social graph is not required, but I suspect social graphs to be more and more important. Facebook is not a 100% social graph anyway. I keep business relations to LinkedIn and my Chinese contacts do not use Facebook. People in highly connected points of social graphs provide a valuable service to society, and are using technology to monetize on their contribution. The people are a mix between a tribe leader and a thought leader. They bring people together and help spread ideas. Even in a very monetized network, Youtube, experts believe Influencers receive less compensation than they would with similar audiences in the old media [1]. This undervalue suggests a market imbalance that should correct it self with time. As more money comes into the field the competition will increase and the quality of the product will increase. That is why I think social graphs will become more and more important. [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdiepie-doesnt-make-anywhere-close-to-what-he-should-be-making/2/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdi...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

There is really just one solution and it’s gaining traction in D.C.: Facebook must be broken up. The second component, an American GDPR, is a harder sell, but we can do that state by state.

lev99 9y ago
What is a GDPR?
- grzm 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

megous 9y ago

Social media is very scary if you don't look only at the relatively educated western populations. Easy way to spread and amplify plausible sounding lies with little correction or oversight in third world countries, where people don't understand the context of what social media is or how it is different from normal media, how it all works, how easy is to photoshop stuff for pretty much anyone... It's troublesome. Even some officials in UN are fearful of Facebook inspired genocide these days. Rwanda was radio telling people to go killing the Other. Now it is Facebook in some countries. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, India,... The difference compared to radio is that it should be possible to prevent incitement to kill/hurt people for Facebook operators even if it would mean shutting it down in particular country, so there's culpability of the Facebook co. Facebook is not just a dumb pipe, they clearly police the content. One day we may wake up to a reality of tens of thousands massacred muslims (or whoever) after people take it to the streets after some particularly successful hate week going viral on Facebook. As of today the riots are so far localised.

deeg 9y ago

It wasn't that long ago that we were lauding the Twitter Revolutions. I don't think social media is going anywhere but it will certainly change.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sprash 9y ago

I already made 5k shorting facebook. Shares could easily fall below $30. Easy money.

cannedslime 9y ago

It bursted long ago. It don't know exactly when it happened, but people went from actually using sites like facebook (Posting about their lives, kids, dinners etc) to just using facebook etc. as a IM platform and meme feed, like we have had alternatives for since forever.

bazzlexposition 9y ago

Is Facebook some magical force that removes all critical thought from a persons brain? If you want to blame Facebook for being fooled into thinking NewOrgScienceNews.cn is a reputable paper, nothing is going to help you. If you even believe that NYT or WaPo or any other news organization is infallible, or shouldn't be approached with a critical eye, you are an idiot. And if you believe a company that makes billions of dollars providing a free service in exchange for user information has your privacy concerns in mind, you are really deluded.