15 ms·
I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past (https://news.ycombinator.com/ite
by rm999 8y ago
I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising pony like half the other tech leaders out there.
His speil about how he's "connecting the world" is undermined by his clear attempts to build a monopoly of social+communication, with an inefficient layer of distracting ads. Imagine a future where every time you want to electronically communicate with someone you have to spend mental energy filtering out ads. It's the equivalent of every road having a toll booth, directly paying into a rich person's bank account. This is the "connecting the world" Mark Zuckerberg has been trying to hide from those of us who aren't paying attention.
- cma 8y agoImagine how useful it would be if when there is a notification about a friend on Facebook, you could peek it by swiping on the notification in the android drawer like you can with texts, without entering the Facebook app. Nope. Engineers are dedicated there to increasing other things than the utility of the app. Interests aren't aligned with the users. Same with removing chronological feeds. Turn things more and more into slot machines.
- chinhodado 8y agoThe most frustrating change for me was FB (or Messenger later) used to send me an email when I received a message, with the message content inside the email. A few years ago they removed the content from the email and forced me to log into FB or Messenger to see the message. It's extremely user hostile.
- chime 8y agoNot to defend FB on this but I can see them doing this defensively. I've seen doctors offices using FB to keep patients updated with their activities (free 'Healthy Eating' seminar), which has unintentionally been used to sent messages like 'Hey Doc needs to reschedule your colonoscopy appointment'. I'm sure FB doesn't want to get involved with indirect HIPAA violations, even if the fault lies elsewhere.
- satsuma 8y agowouldn't using facebook be a hipaa violation in and of itself? doesn't information like that need to be contained to pre-approved, secure methods?
- ben_w 8y agoIANAL, but there is a legal concept of ‘Joint And Several Liability’ — it might be the case that Facebook and the doctor were in violation. Or it might have been just the doctor until someone complained and from that point on just the fact that Facebook knew about it might make them suddenly and automatically liable for further bad behaviour.
- tedunangst 8y agoAre there any examples of service providers being liable for such communications?
- zaphod12 8y agooh lord yes...like a monstrous, you need to be fired one. You can't put phi on any electronic system which you do not have a signed business associate agreement with. I suppose there's a chance that FB signed a baa, in which case this would be their problem, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
- kbenson 8y agoI think perhaps what's being described is akin to a bulletin board with fliers outside the doctors office, with general advice to the public, not specific directed advice to a patient about their specific health issues. I'm not sure that falls afoul of HIPAA, I would imagine it doesn't since it's not specific at all. At the same time, that also makes it irrelevant to the point at hand, since it's not Facebook messenger at all, just general health posts and items offered by that medical group.
- kinsomo 8y ago> The most frustrating change for me was FB (or Messenger later) used to send me an email when I received a message, with the message content inside the email. A few years ago they removed the content from the email and forced me to log into FB or Messenger to see the message. It's extremely user hostile. You also used to be able to reply to the message by replying to the notification email, so you could be a full conversation participant solely through email without ever opening the app.
- diogenescynic 8y agoThey won’t even let you view messages on the mobile website either. Instead they restrict that and force you to install the Messenger app. Yelp does the same thing and feels just as scummy of a tactic. Basically both companies try to force you to install an app you don’t actually need so they can mine your contacts and personal data. No thanks to your tricks and traps business model.
- exolymph 8y agoLast I tried, mbasic.facebook.com would let you look at messages on the mobile web.
- _audakel 8y agoWow. Can confirm worked for me. Seems like the version low connectivity countries would get
- wpietri 8y agoYou can also tell your browser to view Facebook in desktop mode, and you can then see the messages. Not a pleasant user experience, but fine for the rare times when I need it.
- gnicholas 8y agoIt looks fine if you go to m.facebook.com and request the desktop version of the page.
- intended 8y agoThis will always be the case as long as advertising is the core business model. Social media is best suited to that kind of business model - and most people won’t pay for a subscription. So social media is broke?
- stordoff 8y agoIt's basically turning your friends' messages into clickbait. I got one recently that was "Someone just flagged me down at a..." and it just feels like a really insidious way to get you to go to Facebook and read the rest. It doesn't even show that much in the actual email, only in the Gmail preview - it's just a link to Facebook (the text is set to "color:#FFFFFF;display:none !important;font-size:1px;").
- tripzilch 8y ago> the text is set to "color:#FFFFFF;display:none !important;font-size:1px;" Something that nearly any other company would have been banished to the spambox for.
- helloindia 8y agoFB frequently sends notifications that is not directly related to me. e.g. "A friend has commented on a post in a group that you're a member of." Why would Facebook think this is of interest to me, is beyond my understanding.
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoYou can change that in settings. Then facebook will not think that anymore.
- ceph_ 8y agoThere's a setting for it, but it does not turn off many different types of these notifications. I have it turned off, and the last 15 notifications are friend activity that has nothing to do with me.
- janekm 8y agoAgreed. At first I thought it was a bug, and was rather taken aback when I realised it was intentional. Of course, as I have an aversion to click-baity emails, I have barely visited FB since...
- genofon 8y agoYes! The worst for me was a couple of days ago, I started playing a video, I changed tab and the video stopped! I came back and it started again. I guess one of their main KPI it's time on site, like people are not spending enough time already, and regardless of how people want to use their website. Edit: rephrased one sentence
- oregontechninja 8y agoThis might also be a feature of your browser. Firefox and chrome both implemented this a little while ago. If you pin the tab, it shouldn't stop playing video when you switch away. I forget which of the browsers, but it really helps people on bad laptops and what not.
- genofon 8y agobut it doesn't append with youtube for example
- kbenson 8y agoWell, a lot of people use Youtube as a music service, so that makes sense. I think there may be a domain whitelist for non-active page video in chrome, which was brought up and discusses here a while back, but I can't recall. Or maybe it was auto-play? Maybe they share a whitelist though.
- RandallBrown 8y agoWhat do you mean by peeking at the notification?
- danpalmer 8y agoWe just started trialling Facebook Workplace. Unfortunately the same is true of that. It’s all about getting you back into Workplace, rather than actually doing your job.
- htaunay 8y agoThis. Why on earth would an organization invest resources in a productivity tool which is by design optimized to make you procrastinate?
- pmlnr 8y agoSee my sibling comment - "because people are familiar with it already".
- Spooky23 8y agoI’d never allow Facebook inside the firewall, but I did do a Yammer trial. It was actually really cool, except nobody wanted to “own” the community, and eventually some assholes decided to be assholes and got it shut down.
- pmlnr 8y agoMy employer has been using Workplace for over a year. It took over a year to finally hear it from other colleagues that they don't see some posts, which I started telling from the very first day. And the reasoning to use it? "People are familiar with it from home". Well.. how about using something else and spend 30 mins on educating people? Oh, that might mean no new yacht for shareholders this year.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y agoExcept to show that notification on your phone, Facebook needs to give a 3rd party (Phone Manufacturer) access not only to your data, but data about your friends. This is something people are currently very upset with them for doing. So they can make things convenient, or keep your data safe, but its hard to do both.
- ntlve 8y agoTheir code is executing with a third party kernel, trusting that but not trusting the notification system which sits way above hierarchically seems like a very arbitrary delineation.
- hactually 8y agoThat's simply not true. It's an API to publish a notification - a similar API to that used to build the core app. There's no additional sharing of data than what's already happening running the app.
- tripzilch 8y ago> So they can make things convenient, or keep your data safe, but its hard to do both. Even if your argument made sense with respect to the thing people are currently very upset about (which I disagree that it does), there is absolutely NO inherent right for FB to exist if they're unable to do both (if it's just "hard", well then get busy). If I want to keep my data safe, they get to "inconvenience" me? That's ridiculous, if they can't keep my data safe, they don't get shit. "But it's hard!" cry me a river
- sizzle 8y ago" Engineers are dedicated there to increasing other things than the utility of the app" I'll qualify that statement by adding that product management/design team is optimizing for engagement metrics and the engineers are developing from those blueprints. Blame product management for anti-UX decisions. No PO/PM is going to risk their career by spearheading an effort to lower app engagement metrics which results in a loss of advertising revenue.
- madeofpalk 8y agoI get the intent of what you’re saying, but when you have things like this they’re usually representative of the team or company as a whole, rather than a single profession.
- ozmbie 8y agoYou’re correct, and that’s the bigger point. The entire industry business model is tilted in that direction.
- eyeball 8y agoRemoving chronological feeds was the straw for me to quit facebook and linkedin.
- madeofpalk 8y agoPeople go to LinkedIn in for the feed?
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoWhat do you expect for a free product? The entitlement of people is astounding.
- tripzilch 8y agoIt's not free because as it is currently, it's not free to NOT use.
- zitterbewegung 8y agoTo be honest all of the Silicon Valley innovators have this cult of personality that once you look behind the curtain they act in their own self interest (which isn't a bad thing). For example Elon Musk has his "Iron Man" persona that puts himself on a pedestal and projects an ideal that his companies will solve the worlds problems. Once you look behind the curtain you see that he uses this to justify long hours by his workers. The innovation he has is an acceptance of failure for mission critical systems and quality assurance like cars or rockets. The moral of the story is that while the people at the top might make it seem like they do the right things for the right reasons the reasons that any rational person actually do are the right things for the reasons to expand your new business.
- manigandham 8y ago> The innovation he has is an acceptance of failure for mission critical systems and quality assurance like cars or rockets. That's definitely not the case unless you're really just out of touch or purposefully trolling here.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mathattack 8y agoIt pays to signal that you’re mission driven. Employees engage more.
- Apocryphon 8y agoYes, but it can also be an easy way to justify exploitative work conditions worse than industry standard.
- mathattack 8y agoYes. And underpay. I was arguing why someone would rationally seek to appear mission driven. It holds in many cases.
- mycorrhizal 8y agoMaybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much you can afford. The best solution I can think of is keeping the current model, but adding regulation and government oversight to limit some of the most damaging effects i.e. creating platforms that abuse human psychology to keep people clicking and make them addicted to these platforms. I'm genuinely interested in other models people suggest.
- lyzan 8y agoFree version for those with verified low income? (I've been toying with models like this for awhile, and not to say its an easy or simple solution to implement, especially when considering bad actors, but it seems the best chance at getting something "fair") Alternatively could steal from games and add "cosmetics". Charge extra for things like themes that personalize but don't necessarily improve the experience. Items with enough value that people will "want" it but not "need" it.
- ythn 8y agoWhat's the definition of "low income"? It would vary wildly from country to country.
- bald 8y agoNot saying I support the original idea, but there's objective, widely agreed-upon definitions for poverty, so it should be possible to transfer these to define low income.
- drb91 8y ago> objective, widely agreed-upon definitions for poverty No, there aren’t; this is a political line that doesn’t make any sense at all. This is why “livable wage” is a phrase: just getting above the poverty line does not imply you can live on your income. The poverty line is pegged too low to be meaningful, at least here in US.
- justaguyhere 8y agoI am not a fan of his, but is the situation going change unless people are willing to pay for these services? Most people wouldn't even pay for something as useful/important as email, let alone social networking (I can never understand the need for something like Facebook)
- projectramo 8y agoYes, someone should make a messaging app with end-to-end encryption that costs $1/year. I think it would do well. edit: this is supposed to be a WhatsApp joke.
- chmars 8y agoIt’s called Threema: https://threema.ch/en https://threema.ch/en (Signal is free, though, and Open Source …)
- stevenlefty 8y agoYes, but, in contrast to Threema, you have to provide your phone number in order to use Signal, which results in an immediate loss of anonymity.
- tinus_hn 8y agoWhatsApp didn’t have end-to-end encryption when they were using the subscription model though.
- skinnymuch 8y agoWhatsapp never really did this. This is a common misconception especially around here. Whatsapp did $10M in revenue in 2013 and $15M in the first half of 2014. This is with a user base of 400M active users at the beginning of 2014 and 700M active users at the beginning of 2015 (and getting to 950M, 1.2B, and 1.5B over the next three years). When Whatsapp did charge for iOS users, it was a one time payment as well. So not yearly regardless. The app wouldn’t have the popularity it does have if it charged everyone $1 a year. That’s significant to some people vs others. Especially when looking at WhatsApp’s global user base. Whatsapp was operating at a loss during its high growth time period before the Facebook acquisition.
- cm2012 8y agoFacebook ads genuinely add value though. 78% of randomly polled US consumers discovered a new product that interested them on Facebook: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/internettrendsreport2018-180530164809/95/internet-trends-report-2018-71-1024.jpg?cb=1527698933 https://image.slidesharecdn.com/internettrendsreport2018-180... (From Mary Meeker's 2018 report).
- swsieber 8y agoBut how much value do they also take away? My bet is that they are a net drain.
- neogodless 8y agoJust because someone is convinced to part with their money does not mean they meaningfully added value to their life. Certainly generates value for Facebook and retail, though.
- cm2012 8y agoAh, yes, because we brilliant hacker news readers know that the average person is too stupid to know what things they should buy or not buy.
- mfringel 8y agoThat's not my interpretation of that comment. To wit: There are only a few things you can know about someone clicking 'buy' as the result of an ad: 1. The ad platform booked top-line revenue 2. The seller booked top-line revenue 3. The buyer exchanged money for something they thought was worth it at the time of purchase. That's it. Even #3 is conjecture, but it's likely enough that I'm willing to run with it for sake of argument. We do not, and short of asking, can not know if that purchase added value to the buyer's life.
- redditmigrant 8y agoIf they themselves say they discovered a product that they were interested in, how is that not value addition? Value isnt defined in your advertising free ivory tower.
- rpowers 8y agoThe only "connecting" Mark wants is to his pocketbook.
- ponderatul 8y agoI think it's sad, given how smart he is, that he is unaware of this dark side of connection and being connected and of facebook in general. So he's either to wrapped up in himself to realise, or at least acknowledge the dark side of what he's doing. Or even worse, he knows, and is aware but just continues to do so
- bambataa 8y agoI’d be really interested to hear about what MZ is like from people who’ve worked closely with him. All of his public pronouncements seem to lack reflection imo (eg that letter to his child), but perhaps he’s limited by what he can say.
- ComodoHacker 8y agoHere you go: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-cambridge-analytica https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuc...
- amelius 8y ago> Imagine a future where every time you want to electronically communicate with someone you have to spend mental energy filtering out ads. There should be a law that says that ads should be clearly identifiable as such. Like: they should be placed in a frame with the word "advertisement" on top of them. (Coincidentally, this would also make it easy for ad-blockers to remove them).
- matheusmoreira 8y agoThis is why blocking ads is pretty much a moral imperative. People should block ads until we no longer have to put up with business models such as "let's shove our sponsored content down their throats".
- hueving 8y agoIsn't it it equivalent of every road having ads, which is basically the case in the US (billboards)? A tollbooth is an access fee, which is the opposite model of ad revenue.
- reaperducer 8y agoIsn't it it equivalent of every road having ads, which is basically the case in the US (billboards)? Billboards are illegal in some cities and along some roads in the United States.
- sandov 8y agoIt's good to separate the fact that he's a good leader from the fact that facebook does harm in some ways. Hitler was a great leader too.
- AndrewUnmuted 8y agoI don't think anybody who has bothered to read up on Hitler's leadership and management styles would agree that Hitler was actually a great leader.
- pranalli 8y agoZuckerberg is almost single-handedly responsible for the downward spiral that the internet has been on ever since Facebook. He has never respected anybody's privacy or rights. The internet would have been a better place without him. He's to the internet what Trump is to the White House... Just ignores all norms and unwritten rules for his own profit, and causes permanent damage in the process.
- kirillseva 8y agoThe only solution is to take the unwritten rules and write them down
- recharged93 8y agoBingo. The only mass market "free, but pay at some point" model is ads. Nothing else. That is the last 10yrs of Silicon Valley and pretty much every startup today. Cause if you have a great idea and decent execution, FANG companies have so much power to enter the market and crush you, 1st mover advantage is the exception nowadays. Or at least buy you out, github is a perfect example.
- rapind 8y agoI can't imagine he cares about the money anymore, so it must be another motivator. Maybe he believes in what he's doing, for better or worse.
- webkike 8y agoHe probably cares about the well being of facebook employees and his children.
- mbesto 8y agoMoney is a helluva drug. I think you're right about Zuckerberg as a young leader. Start making money and you'll start wanting more and more just to see how much you can make.
- jessewmc 8y agoI don't think the dark patterns are a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The machine maximizes input of human attention for the output of money. The only thing really surprising about Facebook is how consistently well they have executed that function, and for how long they have incrementally optimized it. Zuckerberg deserves some blame/credit for that for sure.
- ace_of_spades 8y agoI am on vacation in India right now and real life here seems to be exactly like the vision you are outlining... just walk around the city and every few meters people are offering you goods that you never knew existed... there is a fine line between useful offerings (e.g., a market) and herassment in every day life. For me it’s all about keeping the choice with the user and away from the seller. To my mind, there should be strong evidence that you are really looking for something before sellers are able to interrupt/contact you.
- Maro 8y agoI read the article based on your comment, but I disagree overall. I do agree that it was---in retrospect---unfortunate and optimistic of MZ to promise too much freedom and independence from FB. But it seems FB _did_ give WhatsApp a long runway, it's been 3-4 years since the acquisition. If their ideas don't work (wrt bringing in revenue in line with the acq. price), at some point you have to go back to square one and do the thing that works (also for IG), and do the FB-style ads/monetization. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the WhatsApp founders. They took the money (they're worth almost $10B now), they did have 3-4 years to find their (and their team's) way within FB. It's cool that they don't like ads and moral standards or whatever, but come on, you have to be more rational when you're playing in the $10B league. Disclaimer: I worked at FB previously for a short time.
- jbu 8y ago> but come on, you have to be more rational when you're playing in the $10B league. Or, being able to choose between $10B and your values shows your character.
- Maro 8y agoI think 99.99% of people would go with the $10B. It's not like you have to kill babies for it... It'd be dumb to hold this against the WhatsApp cofounders. I just think the parent comment saying MZ is somehow evil for this is not right. MZ believes in the ad supported model, and there isn't a whole lot of evidence against it so far. I prefer getting targeted ads over generic weightloss ads. I prefer a professional product over some shitty federated/opensource thing. A lot of people are upset, but then a lot of people don't have a clue how it works (also see the senate hearings, or the device manufacturer thing).