4 ms·

These services want to show you cancer - sorry I mean ads - as much as possible, and for that they want you to stay on the app as long as possible. With a sane

These services want to show you cancer - sorry I mean ads - as much as possible, and for that they want you to stay on the app as long as possible. With a sane chronological feed, once you scroll down to the last tweet you remember reading, you know you’re done and can leave the app and do productive things. With a bullshit “algorithmic” feed, you never know when you’ve caught up, and the “fear of missing out” will make you stay there scrolling way longer just in case there’s one tweet somewhere down there you haven’t seen yet - this gives them the opportunity to show you more cancer.

joncrane 8y ago
You nailed it. When a company lives or dies by advertising revenue, they are going to optimize for maximum advertising revenue. The pattern with TV is a good case study. I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads.
- r3bl 8y ago
  > I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads. Isn't that kind of what "acceptable ads" programs in adblocks are? (Or, at least, should be?) There are a lot of Adblock Plus users there that basically decided (or got tricked into thinking) that ads that are appropriate are okay to view.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    The issue with "acceptable" ads is that 1) there is no such thing as "acceptable" shit, and 2) the "acceptable" ads are just as bad (if not worse) than everyone else as far as privacy & stalking are concerned.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Even if they limit to a reasonable 10% ads or whatever, they'll still manipulate ad sacrifice content quality to maximize total engagement time/content.
noxToken 8y ago
Not only that, but when they can insert other media from friends/people you follow, it can potentially start a new chain of exploration. Even if you know that you've caught up, now you want to see what those other threads are about.
EwanG 8y ago
Just curious, but do you think a paid service that served photos and no ads, and allowed the customization of feed order, would be able to compete? I've presumed the reason folks continue to flock to Instagram is that not only is such a service not available, but the problem that they would likely have to pay before seeing if there's anything to see there.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  I’m not sure it would be able to compete now - displacing an established player is very hard; App.net tried that a few years ago with Twitter; but ultimately not many people cared (despite the free tier) and the few paying users weren’t enough to make it sustainable. The issue wasn’t really with it being paid, it was simply about network effects - everyone was on Twitter. If a new free social network becomes mainstream, they could however introduce a paid tier as part of their monetisation strategy alongside ads. This would give users a choice, be exploited by ads and see cancer every day, or pay your way out of it. If anything, Instagram would’ve been the perfect opportunity to offer such a paid plan, as a lot of professional photographers use it, and they wouldn’t mind paying for an improved experience and thus more productivity.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > but ultimately not many people cared (despite the free tier) and the few paying users weren’t enough to make it My guess? Twitter only exist because of network effects. Everything else somebody else does better. Oh, and most orinary people are more interested in one-to-one group chat than in many-to-many. WhatsApp managed to break through even though they were announcing loud and clear that they were going to cost money. Why? I guess because they promised to provide something valuable: a versatile, reliable, trustworthy messaging solution for friends, families and small groups. Telegram has managed to break through as well. AFAIK Signal is climbing steadily and Matrix is getting more and more mindshare. Based my experience a lot people here will probably disagree with what I say about twitter. If you are one of those, feel free to tell me what technical detail twitter does better than everyone else.
    - 8y ago
fjsolwmv 8y ago
It works until it doesn't, when people start unfollowing or leaving IG.

joncrane 8y ago

You nailed it. When a company lives or dies by advertising revenue, they are going to optimize for maximum advertising revenue. The pattern with TV is a good case study. I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads.

r3bl 8y ago
> I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads. Isn't that kind of what "acceptable ads" programs in adblocks are? (Or, at least, should be?) There are a lot of Adblock Plus users there that basically decided (or got tricked into thinking) that ads that are appropriate are okay to view.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  The issue with "acceptable" ads is that 1) there is no such thing as "acceptable" shit, and 2) the "acceptable" ads are just as bad (if not worse) than everyone else as far as privacy & stalking are concerned.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Even if they limit to a reasonable 10% ads or whatever, they'll still manipulate ad sacrifice content quality to maximize total engagement time/content.

noxToken 8y ago

Not only that, but when they can insert other media from friends/people you follow, it can potentially start a new chain of exploration. Even if you know that you've caught up, now you want to see what those other threads are about.

EwanG 8y ago

Just curious, but do you think a paid service that served photos and no ads, and allowed the customization of feed order, would be able to compete? I've presumed the reason folks continue to flock to Instagram is that not only is such a service not available, but the problem that they would likely have to pay before seeing if there's anything to see there.

Rjevski 8y ago
I’m not sure it would be able to compete now - displacing an established player is very hard; App.net tried that a few years ago with Twitter; but ultimately not many people cared (despite the free tier) and the few paying users weren’t enough to make it sustainable. The issue wasn’t really with it being paid, it was simply about network effects - everyone was on Twitter. If a new free social network becomes mainstream, they could however introduce a paid tier as part of their monetisation strategy alongside ads. This would give users a choice, be exploited by ads and see cancer every day, or pay your way out of it. If anything, Instagram would’ve been the perfect opportunity to offer such a paid plan, as a lot of professional photographers use it, and they wouldn’t mind paying for an improved experience and thus more productivity.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  > but ultimately not many people cared (despite the free tier) and the few paying users weren’t enough to make it My guess? Twitter only exist because of network effects. Everything else somebody else does better. Oh, and most orinary people are more interested in one-to-one group chat than in many-to-many. WhatsApp managed to break through even though they were announcing loud and clear that they were going to cost money. Why? I guess because they promised to provide something valuable: a versatile, reliable, trustworthy messaging solution for friends, families and small groups. Telegram has managed to break through as well. AFAIK Signal is climbing steadily and Matrix is getting more and more mindshare. Based my experience a lot people here will probably disagree with what I say about twitter. If you are one of those, feel free to tell me what technical detail twitter does better than everyone else.
  - 8y ago

fjsolwmv 8y ago

It works until it doesn't, when people start unfollowing or leaving IG.